Learn from the mistakes of others

the only point at which god comes into the equation is if you believe in such an entity.

the reason god is not in science, is simple - you cannot create a test to establish whether such an entity exists or not. that is a question of faith, not science.

i have training in both science and theology. i do not confuse them.

the literal texts of the collection of religio-political writings known as "the bible" (increasingly inaccurately derived from the greek singular "book") were written in a number of languages over a very long period of time. very few people alive can read them, let alone can ascertain compellingly which of the various competing texts ought to be included or excluded from the canonical collection. there is no universally accepted version of the collection, and has not been for centuries. as for interpretation ... and try to remember that most of the world is not christian of any derivation, and so do not look to any version of the aforementioned for solace, aggravation, or insight.

most of the so-called 'controversy' surrounding "intelligent design" arises out of a confusion between belief and logic.

science is founded upon the scientific method, whereby one attempts to ascertain knowledge about the physical universe though the application of rational logic to empirical evidence. "intelligent design" is only 'controversial' because it is not what it's peddlers claim it to be, and they insist otherwise.

it is certainly possible to ascertain knowledge about the universe by other means, but they are not part of science and must not be confused with it.

one of the more devious aspects of the "intelligent design" "debate" is the misuse of words like 'theory'.

theory has a specific meaning in science that differs from the common usage of the word. claiming that a scientific theory is 'merely' a 'theory' is fallacious and underhanded. scientific theories are not mere beliefs, they are functional models that are works-in-progress to explain how the physical universe we observe functions - and importantly, they attempt to predict things we have not yet observed and tested, and how we might go about observing and testing them. over time they get challenged, modified, and even replaced. but replaced with other models with the same purpose - to represent what we understand, and what we don't, and explain how to move the latter into the former.

"intelligent design" offers none of that of itself. it does add in the idea that the mind of 'god' matters. that's theology, not science. the two went their separate ways centuries ago. there is no reason a scientist cannot be motivated by their religious beliefs, but those beliefs are not science, or scientific.

as for debate, real debate, i have seen nothing much of that from the "intelligent design" camp. lots of chest-thumping and weasel-wording though.

so-called "intelligent design" is a belief, not a (scientific) theory.