Spirited exchange? You got it.

Presumably, you were attempting to be funny in "Irreplaceable Perplexity 101: Ms. Cleary has designs on teaching evolution" (SN: 12/24&31/05, p. 414), but the bias was too obvious, straight out of the anti-intelligent design talking points. Instead of ridicule, could we get a spirited exchange from the best minds on both sides?

DAVID F. COPPEDGE, NEWHALL, CALIF.

While I'm extremely skeptical of the claims that some intelligent design (ID) proponents make about evolution, practically everything I see about ID is highly politicized (including this article). Finding a nugget of information in this hype I find nauseating. If you can find someone who can write a clear explanation of how the ID technique works and has been effectively applied outside the field of biology, I would appreciate it.

DAVID FOSS, SOLON, OHIO

Your article states, "but religions answer big questions that nearly everyone asks about our connection to the universe and the meaning of our lives." You just threw in the towel by even suggesting that people can actually get answers from their religion about their connection to the universe and the meaning of their lives.

KAREN SPENCE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

While entertaining, Ms. Cleary misses a crucial point. Creationism and intelligent design fail as science for a fundamental reason: They both require miraculous or magical events to explain the existence of things in our natural universe.

VIRGIL H. SOULE, FREDERICK, MD.

Actually, taken as a whole, the article seems to support the teaching of intelligent design and making fun of evolution.

DUANE STEINER, RIDGECREST, CALIF.