This is in response to "Natural law must get very critical review" (April 4) by John Petrilli and "All theories must get a look by 'science'" (April 4) by Kelly Antonic. First, to Mr. Petrilli: Mr. Petrilli has made a common mistake in arguing that natural "law" of selection would have been applicable to the society and humanity wholesale. The so-called "law" of natural selection, like any other "laws" of natural sciences, is merely a tool, a set of rules derived from observations of natural phenomena and how we understand them.

Like any tools, how it is used is entirely up to its users. We can no more argue that natural selection leads to moral decrepitude than "guns kill people," now, can we?

As for Ms. Antonic: I agree -- Intelligent Design should be taught. It should also be subject to equally onerous rigor of scientific trials of fire as those endured by the evolutionary theory since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859.

As a purported scientific debate, so shall it be resolved in the arena of science.

It is about time the Intelligent Design researchers get productive and present some shred of reliable and reproducible results in support of their "theory." To my American colleagues, I say "Good luck!"

For we shall see if this gambit of risking the national interest of America by undermining its edge in life sciences for the glorification of God -- nothing wrong with that -- will pay off 10 or 20 years down the road.