Fear of Clowns

I am glad to see the Catholic Church being open minded. It would be foolish to ignore science anyways. But I also agree with the Cardinal's comment that "science, too, should listen to religion." Seems fair to me.

Isn't it possible that ID and evolution can both be true? Isn't it the starting point which is the sticking point?

Furthermore, the man who began the idea of ID was not a theologian nor a scientist, so anyone who claims that ID is scientific or theological would be mistaken.

ID is thousands of years old and is metaphysics, not science.

Erik, you keep saying that I am saying that ID is scientific, if you read carefully what I wrote, I specifically said ID is NOT scientific. Everything does not have to have scientific approval for it to have merit.

The link I perviously provided shows that ID is thousands of years old.

I dunno - ask proponents of ID if they think they're being scientific. They do.

I can't tell if you are trying to be an ID proponent or just argumentative.

Who, me? Argumentative?

If by proponent you mean I am open-minded to the theory of intelligent design, well then I am guilty as charged.

Mmm, I disagree with Erik. Maybe I'm being technical here, but I don't agree ID is 1000's of years old. I think it's based on an intuition that is 1000's of years old. Intelligent Design is actually very contemporary. As you know, it was very deliberately and strategically created a few years ago as a public relations strategy to make people confused and doubt evolution. They wanted to create a dishonest, fake "controversy" in order to get their point of view slipped into American public schools. I'm sure you (Erik) know this, but I think this distinction is important, because lots of people consider evolution to be teleological as well. (I'm referring to your link). So, an argument of teleology can be given for both ID and evolution. (Even though, sadly there is absolutely no genuine evidence for it in the natural world.)

To Beth, I respect your statement that ID is not scientific nor theological. I agree with you! I also respect that you're trying to make room for both sides.

One of the biggest problems with bestowing ID the high honor of being a scientific theory and then demanding (yes, demanding) that it be taught in school is that there is no theory. It's not putting forth any positive claim. So it can't be tested, so why are we talking about it?

Because some religious PR people are, oddly, not being honest. I'm being sincere when I say that I think that's surprising. But they're being dishonest, with an intent to manipulate. They claim there is a "controversy" within science about the fact of evolution, when really that is very, very far from the truth. (Again, as you note, Beth, the ID people are not biologists, so why would non-biologists know more about a really difficult, complicated topic than the specialists themselves do? The answer is, they don't. They just really want to sound as though they do.)

So, Beth, the reason why sadly, ID and evolution can't both be true, is that ID's only claim is that evolution is not true. That's why it is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-American. The only thing it is is a big bucket of mud thrown at progress and endeavor and really, really hard working scientists who have dedicated themselves towards painstaking attempts toward testable truth.

(PS. Beth, if you meant to ask "why can't there be God and evolution", actually most people will tell you there's no reason you can't :). I don't happen to agree, (or rather, that there could be a good God) but I'm pretty much the odd one out, and please know that my reasons have to do with much more than only evolution.) But Intelligent Design "theory" is not the same as a belief in God. ID has to only do with an opposition to evolution, and was only made up in order to create disceptive, unmeritted doubts about evolution.)

Beth, if you're not entirely sick of me yet, I'd be curious to know in what ways science should listen to religion. I don't quite understand that part.