Yesterday's Times Educational Supplement contains two articles that are supportive of teaching intelligent design (ID) in schools, from very different perspectives, both different to the perspective of TiS.

Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine has an opinion piece titled "Why we should learn Intelligent Design". He argues against those who are "outraged" at the idea of teaching ID.

Aren't we getting a bit hysterical? Like the mythical Victorians who covered their piano legs because they were so prudish, dislike of ID has lead many to become irrationally phobic about its very mention. As a commited atheist, I actually want to see ID discussed in classrooms, and I'm pleased to say it is already happening.

Dr Baggini believes ID to be "bad science", but writes:

ID should be on the syllabus because it is a widely held dissenting view, and if you do not equip people to assess such views, they are going to appear more, not less, credible.

...If people are going to reject ID, they can't be expected to do it purely on trust.

The newspaper also contains an interview with Michael Reiss, Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, and Director of Education at the Royal Society. His comments are not directly on ID, but deal with the relationship of science and religion.

Professor Reiss claims that...a person's beliefs can influence how he or she perceives the world: while scientists view a wildlife documentary as an example of natural selection at work, creationists marvel at God's design. Avoiding discussion of religion in science lessons, therefore, risks alienating pupils who find the lesson disconnected from their worldview.

He concludes that all schools should incorporate aspects of religion into the science curriculum. That would allow for discussion of science's strengths and limitations, and illustrate the importance of social context in science.