Thanks to Paul Hutcheon for reporting on Dr Nagy Iskander's reappointment to South Lanarkshire Council's education committee (Would you Adam and Eve it ... meet the creationist in the classroom, News, January 21). Two claims quoted from Dr Iskander –"In evolution, they think that everything made itself" and “Evolution is against the laws of thermo-dynamics” – reveal a deficient understanding that might make a science teacher smile, if the speaker did not enjoy a reserved position of influence on what children are taught.

If Dr Iskander had been required to stand for election, his views might have deterred any voter concerned for the integrity of science teaching in local schools, but the council's obligation to offer him a reserved seat as a faith representative prevents the electorate from having any say on his suitability.

This law is anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian, since The Church of Scotland and The Catholic Church are automatically granted seats, a third seat usually goes to another Christian, other faiths are only rarely represented, and no seats at all are reserved for those without a recognised religion. As these now make up about half the population and look likely to increase, this unfair law looks increasingly unsustainable.

Robert Canning

Secular Scotland, Edinburgh

“Local authorities are legally required to appoint three members representing churches to their education committees,” you report. That being so, it would be only fair if churches were legally required to have on their ruling bodies three members with no religious affiliations. May I please put in for appointment as a bishop?

Paul Brownsey

Glasgow

One of the first principles of science I learned at school was that matter was neither created nor destroyed. Even as a boy I could see that science had ruled out creation from the very start and that it didn't explain how matter got there in the first place.

I decided then that science involved the study of what was created and the study of creation was a different subject. It seems to me that bullying people who believe in creation is unscientific behaviour.

John Kelly

Kelso

Concern has been expressed that unelected and unaccountable religious representatives from fringe groups can take decisions on children's education. At least two points are worth making. First, why do the churches have three free privileged membership cards to a committee in a democratic system? Second, those to whom freedom of speech is important have expressed concern recently about the growing authoritarian tendencies of socially progressive teachers and university campuses, and the ''snowflake generation'' with its ''no platforming'' and desire to censor ''hurtful'' or ''violent'' words on university campuses. One reason why students are afraid of free speech could be that they feel ill-equipped to present their own arguments. Part of the answer surely is to teach students in schools and universities the art and science of debating. To take a position and argue for it. To think quickly, structure facts into arguments, see the flaws in the arguments of the other side, understand other perspectives and learn to persuade.

Doug Clark

Currie

GO ON MILLENNIALS – START DIGGING

I HOPE Iain Macwhirter is right, but I’ll believe it when I see it (Millennials will dig capitalism’s grave, Comment, January 21). As a child in the 1960s I saw revolution in the air. The hippy generation – our big brothers and sisters – were going to change everything. We had the Summer of Love in 1967, the Paris uprising in 1968. Then the revolution disappeared in a big marijuana cloud and capitalism remained intact.

Then my own generation came of age. We were angrier than the hippies with our punk rock, our Anarchy In The UK T-shirts, our riots, political rock concerts and support for the miners. The regimes of Thatcher and Reagan, I believed, were capitalism’s last desperate death struggles. My generation would change everything. Instead, the mood of rebellion turned into dance clubs, stand-up comics, hedonistic escapism – and capitalism has triumphed ever since. Maybe things are changing under the surface. With social media, events like Occupy can be organised. But in everyday life I see no sign of a desire to bring down capitalism and consumerism. This would require a new mindset whereby people would prefer good public transport to owning a car, would see a house as a home rather than a step on the property ladder, would be content with one home without a need for a second one, would like to see major industries and services under public or employee ownership, would like to see wealth and income redistributed.

Iain Macwhirter rightly criticises capitalism and no doubt can argue the alternatives too. But right I don’t see any directional change in the mainstream to suggest that capitalism is about to be deposed or even reformed. If, as he and I hope, the younger generation are at work to bring about change, I’d like to see some action.

Jeff Fallow.

Windygates

HOW TO BEAT THE DESPOTIC POWER

Congratulations to Iain Macwhirter for his ferocious but persuasive attack on neo-liberal capitalism (Millennials will dig capitalism’s grave, Comment, January 21). It’s surely time that the “despotic power” of finance capital is challenged and neutered, in the interests of democracy and a fairer world. Here’s a checklist of what needs done. First, get out of that arch neo-liberal project, the EU, the blueprint for which was laid down by Hayek before the last war and taken up by his disciples in post-war France and Germany to set up a united states of Europe based on market principles and the supremacy of money and profit.

Second, return to a planned economy. This means taking railways and all other public utilities into public hands and operating these for public benefit rather than private profit. Do likewise in the NHS to make the whole service publicly owned and run. We do need a vast expansion of socially useful employment.

Third, because of the future effect on employment of computerisation and robotics, let’s look seriously social credit or a citizen’s wage. These ideas, coupled with local production of goods and services wherever possible, would reduce inequality and make social usefulness, rather than profit, the driving force of a participatory democracy.

Randolph Murray

Rannoch

WHY I VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU

Andrew Walker says he “voted Leave after long and careful consideration” but he does not say upon what he based his final decision (Leave voters’ senses are intact, Letters, January 21).

I voted Remain based on travelling around Scotland, Wales and rural north-east England and seeing signs saying that such and such an improvement project was funded by the EU, projects that would never have got off the ground if funding was required directly from London. I also based my decision on searching for the facts behind the tabloids’ headlines, discovering the truth about such notions as “straight cucumbers”.

And I was greatly informed by living, working and studying in several EU countries, including studying national and EU law in France and Germany. It became very apparent that “they are aw oot o step but oor Johnny”. As in 2014, we were fed lies, half-truths and innuendos by the tax-avoiding non-domiciled billionaire-owned press, by the little Englanders still dreaming of empire, and not least by UK bureaucrats who gold-plated every decision by Europe to justify their own existence.

Jim Clark

Scone

NOTHING COVERT ABOUT INDY DRIVE

Keith Howell refers to Nicola Sturgeon’s “underlying motivations” as if he’s discovered something new about the SNP (Leave voters’ senses are intact, Letters, January 21). It is the firm case that the SNP wishes a further independence referendum; in 2014 we were told that Scotland would not be allowed into the EU – a main plank in their case. Now by English votes, and a few Welsh ones, Scotland will be dragged out of the EU. The fact that unionists lied is a further reason why we need a referendum as we will suffer materially from that decision.

Jim Lynch, Edinburgh