The article missed a very important point: While tere are creation theorists who are precommitted to a particular interpretation of the scripture and who will twist science to fit it, Intelligent Design (ID) doesn't do so. It is an evolutionary theory and should be treated as such. It accepts that species changed over time; it simply questions the adequacy of standard mechanisms to explain all we're learning about live's marvels.

American cosmologist Ed Harrison speculated that the universe's exceptional fine-tuning for life might be due to its creation by aliens from another universe, but he wasn't labeled a religious nut for doing so. ID proponents are merely asking for the same treatment. Academic fairness cuts both ways.

ID proponents aren't being "disingenuous" when they decline to identify the designer. Many of them believe the designer is God, but that's not something science can determine. They are simply staying within the bounds of what science can infer. The activity of a designer might be detected, but the designer's idenity would be outside science.

On the other hand, it is disingenous for us scientists to pretend that only creation proponents mingle their religious views with their science.

When Carl Sagen says, "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, or ever will be," he's not speaking as an astrophysicist. Could he prove this famous statement scientifically? That is, by studying the universe, couldhe determine what lies beyond it?

We all have a religion - that is, a metaphysical belief system - and it can be tricky to discern when it is creeping into our science. However, we all need to guard against mixing it with our science, or we cannot object when others do so.

Let's keep all religious statements out of the schoools, not just one kind. If we did so consistently, much of the pressure on lay Christians to discredit science would vanish, and much of the current "debate" would vanish with it.

Scott E. Robinson
Houston