I refer to the letter from Craig Gibson titled "Let's nourish children's innate desire for inquiry" (Education Post, March 14), which accused scientists of being narrow-minded.
Yes, more should be taught about what makes evolution the "accepted" theory (the evidence, confirmation from fossil records, genetics, etc) but NOT via evaluating "the similarities and differences of various beliefs". Beliefs are not science but notions unsupported by evidence.
If any "alternative views" to evolution are to be discussed in science classes, they ought to fit the definition of science or our science classes will be cluttered with untested ideas.
As to Danny Thurston's claim that "flaws in the theory of evolution have been needed for a long time", I would add that nobody claims the theory of evolution has answers to all the questions about origins of species and life.
Nevertheless, using this as reason to suggest that "intelligent design" offers the answer is just a negative argument. Intelligent design still has a long way to go (if it really has a way to go) before it can be regarded as scientific knowledge. In fact it is as good as dead after the Dover, Pennsylvania federal court trial.
VIRGINIA YUE, The Peak