We have met the enemy, and he is us. — Pogo. (Walt Kelly)

The mixing of science and religion in the classroom has occasioned divisive public debate, recently yielding a court decision in Dover, Pa., taken with great relief among scientists.

Arthur Shapiro's thoughtful Forum article on Jan. 13 points out that those who oppose the teaching of evolution are not limited to cartoonish, Bible-thumping throwbacks, but also include thoughtful members of the public. Moreover, many scientists, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, share with them a view of life as an "enchanted state."

Like it or not, our ability to teach science validly in the public schools depends on a social consensus permitting it. I believe that some scientists have contributed importantly to the toxic atmosphere that threatens this consensus. Ironically, it takes the form of doing precisely what we accuse unschooled religious fundamentalists of doing: injecting personal religious beliefs into the science curriculum. It is never pleasant to have to look in the mirror, but some scientists are just as culpable of mixing religion and science as any closed-minded creationist insisting we teach a Biblical view of creation.

Consider, for example, the breathtaking arrogance of a group of Nobel Prize winners who publicly declared that belief in God is incompatible with being a good scientist ("Scientists speak up on mix of God and science," New York Times, Aug. 23, 2005).

Thus, atheism, which requires a leap of faith at least as large as those for other belief systems, is established by the reigning lights as the official state religion for the world of science.

My word! May we not forget that it was also the intelligentsia who once assured us that the world was flat and that sterilization of the "unfit" was right and just — and necessary. This is not only wrong-headed, it is profoundly stupid. Can anyone think of a better way to poke a finger in the eye of a voting public that supports science and teachers both philosophically and through its tax dollars? I can't.

The fundamental error here is rich in irony: Some of our best and brightest scientists have a complete misapprehension of the very essence of science. They mistake science for truth.

Well, science is not truth. Science is a method. It is extremely powerful for arriving at certain types of truths. . . eventually. Like any method, it is fallible, especially if applied to questions it cannot address or when certain underlying conditions are not present.

Science requires a testable hypothesis and an observer willing to alter the hypothesis based on experimental evidence. Intelligent design offers neither of these. For this reason and for this reason alone, intelligent design does not belong in the science curriculum. Not because it is incorrect — indeed, it may be correct — but because it is not science. It is religion, or ideology. Noble in its own right, but not science.

It is at this level that we can and must join with each other and thoughtful members of the public to prevent the unnecessary and dangerous mixing of specific religious belief in science. If we don't insist that science requires the exclusion of divinity, we can agree that certain conditions must be present for science to achieve its full potential in yielding certain types of truth.

Whether God created man (which I believe as a practicing Catholic) or man created God (an article of faith among some of my fellow scientists) cannot be decided by science.

Bringing this question into the debate — and insisting that one's answer to it be taught in the public school science curriculum — serves only to polarize. As scientists, we must join with thoughtful members of the public in nurturing a consensus that respects the boundaries of science and religion. In this way both disciplines, and society as a whole, can flourish.

Stephen McCurdy is a professor of medicine who specializes in epidemiology.