The Kansas State Board of Education has voted, by a narrow margin, to introduce new science standards that retain the study of evolution in the curriculum but also encourage schools to teach the “scientific evidence” that questions evolution (http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/). Although they do not explicitly propose including 'intelligent design' in the curriculum, their assertion that the debate between evolutionary biologists and proponents of intelligent design is a scientific disagreement opens the door for introducing creationism in a new guise. Kansas faced a similar challenge in 1999, when Kansas Citizens for Science narrowly avoided a school board decision to restrict Darwinian teaching Nature 436, 753 - 753; 200510.1038/436753a. Last month, voters ousted eight 'intelligent design' supporters from the school board in Dover, PA, raising hopes for a reversal in Kansas before these new standards go into effect in 2007.

The notion that the diversity and complexity of life cannot have emerged through a process of natural selection alone, but must instead have been guided by an 'intelligent design', has risen in prominence in recent years. Although Kansas has a history of dissent on the issue, many other US states are entering the debate (http://www.npr.org/), with some advocating the use of stickers in biology textbooks to warn readers that the evolutionary ideas contained are “only a theory”. Pressure on school curricula to include anti-Darwinian concepts has also surfaced in parts of Europe, although not to the same degree as in the US (Nature Cell Biol. 7, 99; 2005). More recently, it has also found favour with leading figures in the Vatican. To the American public (51% of whom reject evolution, according to a recent CBS News poll), intelligent design has been offered as a 'scientifically valid' alternative to evolution.

Proponents of this movement not only portray evolution as controversial and hypothetical, but also present intelligent design as a legitimate science, freed of the religious associations of creationism by having left the designer un-named. Detractors are depicted as lacking intellectual integrity in failing to allow discussion of alternative viewpoints. The Discovery Institute, a think tank promoting intelligent design, aims to underscore the scientific rigour of their position by listing peer-reviewed papers and books on, and in support of, intelligent design on its website; including a 'concept' article on protein folds published in Nature (Nature, 410, 417; 2001).

So how should scientists respond? Some argue that debating with proponents of design would legitimise their claims (Nature 434, 550; 2005 10.1038/434550a), but dismissing them may damage our credibility with the public (see Book Review on page 1150 of this issue). Whatever the fate of evolutionary theory in the US classroom, a public who believes that intelligent design enjoys the same status as natural selection is in sore need of an education in the nature of scientific enquiry and debate. Universities, research institutions, journals and individual scientists must take every opportunity to make this the focus of the debate over science education.