Sir

Your news story “Evolution critics seek role for unseen hand in education” (Nature 416, 250; 2002) identifies an important issue in science teaching: that of the way science is taught versus the concepts that are taught as science. The proponents of 'intelligent design' correctly point out the value of challenging scientific theory. Such challenges are an essential component of science if theories are not to become dogma. Science curricula the world over should embrace this principle, and science should be taught as a dynamic field in which new ideas are continually being tested and revised.

Scientific progress has been made by examining many wondrous and fantastic ideas, but educators must make it abundantly clear that not all fantastic ideas represent sound science. This is central in determining the subject matter of science curricula. The longstanding and powerful attempt to integrate creationism into science classes is an excellent example of politics blurring the boundary of the subject.

Creationists argue that since evolution is not completely proven, it is important to present a competing theory, to let students decide for themselves. Scientists oppose such ideas for one simple reason: creationism, in any form, is not science. By including a supernatural being, or an 'intelligent design' concept, creationists exclude their ideas from the domain of science because these are neither testable nor falsifiable — two criteria that are crucial to scientific method.

Any alternative to evolutionary theory must follow the methods of science, being based on testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Perhaps one way in which creationism can be used constructively in science education would be as a tool to illustrate how not to carry out science.