Sir

Even after more than a century of vindication for evolutionary biology, creationism remains a stubborn problem for science educators.

In your Editorial “Dealing with design” (Nature 434, 1053; 200510.1038/4341053a) and News Feature “Who has designs on your students' minds?” (Nature 434, 1062–1065; 2005), theistic scientists were asked to discuss how they reconcile their faith with science. Atheistic scientists were asked to take the time to understand matters of faith and how they relate to theories and findings of modern science. I applaud these recommendations, but it seems many of my colleagues do not.

The issue will not go away if we ignore the challenge posed by ID. Herman L. Mays Jr

In the Correspondence letter from Jerry Coyne, co-signed by many of the most prominent figures in biology (“When science meets religion in the classroom” Nature 435, 275; 200510.1038/435275a), this approach is rejected. Rather than expressing the neutrality of science on matters of religion, I think this letter epitomizes the disregard, if not outright hostility, towards religious faith that is all too common in the scientific community.

This refusal to discuss what some students perceive as the threat posed by evolution, and the idea that science classrooms are the place where religious views “crumble”, will only result in science teachers having to deal more with ‘intelligent design’ (ID) in the future.

I do not want to discuss religion in the science classroom any more than Jerry Coyne does, but the issue will not go away if we simply ignore the challenge posed by ID and the concerns — albeit misguided — of students. Increased student dialogue and sensitivity on the part of instructors are exactly what is called for, to combat the inroads made by ID into the science classroom.