Intelligent design distorted

26th May 2006 at 01:00
I was disappointed by the misinformation in John Kelleher's article about creationism ("In the beginning...", TES Teacher magazine, May 5).

As a parent of secondary-age children, I believe that science classes should focus on evidence, not mere opinion. If Mr Kelleher is so sure that intelligent design is not based on evidence but on faith, then why the need to misrepresent the views of Professor Michael Behe, one of ID's foremost advocates?

Professor Behe has never written about the fossil record or dinosaurs, and accepts both the conventional geological timescale and common ancestry. As a biochemist, he has argued cogently for design in the biochemical components of the cell, and it was in this entirely different context that he wrote what was quoted. ID certainly raises real educational issues for teaching science. One only hopes that teachers will look at what ID advocates are really saying.

Dr Alistair Donald

1 Fordyce Terrace New Deer, Aberdeenshire

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today