at least i'm not the only one seeing this part of it...

[...]the ongoing push to include I.D. in science curriculum does more than muddy scientific waters; it actually underscores the irreligious notion that when it comes to believing in God, faith isn't enough.

The target of the I.D. proponents is evolution because they equate evolution with atheism. However, in their zeal, they've set up an unintended target, one of individual and collective religious faith.

The contradiction is interesting. Usually, we think of faith as a central tenet of religion and the hallmark of spiritual journeys. But I.D. suggests that God's existence must be scientifically proven, not accepted by faith. It also puts God in the role of a fill-in or an alternative where there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

Posed as scientific theory, the I.D. concept hinges on science's inability to prove a negative. In other words, since the complexities of plant and animal life are hard to explain and science cannot prove that God is not responsible for them, science should theorize that God is responsible for them.

Of course, the I.D. people don't say, "God;" the new twist is to postulate a great, amorphous "intelligent designer." (Fill in the blank with your own personal favorite designer/god.) The results become scientific protocols that are compromised and religion that is tied to the designs of a common-denominator-type deity.

What is unfortunate about this phenomenon is that it does nothing to enhance science or religion, and, more importantly, it is unnecessary. Evolutionary theory is neither pro-God nor anti-God; it is neutral. Its' crux is natural selection: in order to adapt, survive, and flourish, organisms change over time. Period. Evolution makes no claims about the human soul, nor does it define - much less diminish - human dignity.

-- Jane Ahlin