Sir - Most readers of books by Michael Behe or William Dembski find intelligent design a rational, but not necessarily correct, idea (Letters, January 30).

Darwinists clearly think they can refute the idea that complex structures need a designer; others think they are wrong. All this is fine - we call this scientific debate.

However, for taking this line, I have been called a creationist (when I am an agnostic) and anti-evolution (despite having provided an addition to the theory of natural selection).

From this, I conclude that most of the debate is not about science, but is a battle between the creationists and atheists to determine who will set the present, and future, cultural agenda. Those of us who are not involved should make sure that neither side wins.

Dr Milton Wainwright, University of Sheffield

Sir - Stephen Meyer's article (Opinion, January 28) on intelligent design was a thoughtful and calm outline of the background to the debate.

In my own research area of evolutionary algorithms, intelligent design works together with evolutionary principles to produce better solutions to real problems.

Sometimes the results are novel and surprising, but, on reflection, they were always inherent in the initial formulation. Without the initial activity of an intelligent agent, the evolutionary mill has no grist to work on.

As molecular biology advances, the Darwinist dogma becomes ever more implausible as an explanation for the sort of complexity that Meyer describes.

Prof Colin Reeves, Rugby, Warwickshire

Turns out that the the good prof is Professor of Operational Research in the School of Mathematical and Information Sciences (MIS) at Coventry University, and his research focuses on genetic algorithms, and the good doctor is in the Molecular Biology and Biotechnology department at University of Sheffield.