Steve Fuller makes a cogent case for intelligent design theory, but not a scientific one ("Schools for the Enlightenment or epiphany?", December 23/30). His presupposition is a common belief in the existence of an intelligent designer, and within those parameters he may well have a point. But the existence of an intelligent designer is a matter of faith, not science.
Of course, in this interdisciplinary world it is impossible to find any discipline that is entirely separate from others, but that should not be allowed to muddy the waters here. The cornerstone of IDT is subjective faith, not scientific methodol-ogy.
The imposition of IDT in the science class is something that, to paraphrase Fuller, many thoughtful atheists (and others) would find arbitrary and even oppressive.
Pól ? Dochartaigh
Ulster University