Sir

I was rather disappointed with the one-sided presentation of intelligent design theory in your News Feature (Nature 434, 1062–1065; 2005), and even more so with the Correspondence letters (Nature 435, 275–276; 200510.1038/435275a). They take the naive viewpoint that religious and scientific thought must be in conflict. That is not the only, in fact not even (historically) the most prevalent, mode of addressing these two important subjects.

Most of the founding fathers of western science had no difficulty reconciling their religious beliefs with their scientific pursuits. In fact, the latter grew out of the former. This discussion actually goes back as far as the writings of Thomas Aquinas and the early Greek philosophers. Some of their writings on the interplay between these two fields is far more ‘modern’, thoughtful and relevant than much published in the modern age.

As a Christian and a scientist, I have continually found that one method of pursuing knowledge complements the other. Any conflicts I have are resolved by the revelation of my errors of thought in one area or the other. Thus my scientific reasoning bolsters my faith while my religious reasoning augments my scientific pursuits.

If one believes in objective truth and is using a rational system of thought (and when properly applied, both scientific and religious thought meet these two criteria) there is no need to feel threatened by another's pursuit of truth. In the worst case, the two groups can agree to disagree, but in the best case they can learn more about truth together, through respectful dialogue, than they can separately.

The relationship between science and religion needs attention at a fundamental level. Only if both sides sincerely try to understand each other can a mutually beneficial dialogue be resumed.