Intelligent Design, or I.D. is another forray into the attempt to prove the existence of God. Many ID proponents say this isn't the attempt to prove the existence of God as worshipped in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic tratitions but simply the attempt to prove the existence of a Creator. (I have some doubts about the sincerity of this statement but that's neither here nor there.)

I have always been fascinated by science and the interconnectedness of the world. The idea that solid matter is actually mostly open space in which atoms interact using the four fundamental forces amazes me. The idea that a human being full of hoes and creativity, and the capacity of live is made in the same way takes my breath away. The way that the solar system is locked together by the sun's gravity and the interaction of orbit, rotation, and moon to work on the seasons and the weather fills me with awe.

Everything in our world seems to me to be crafted in loving detail and set into motion in a delicate harmony. Studying astro-sciences, geo-sciences, and bio-sciences always fills me with a sense of awe and wonder. In faith I am certain I see the hand of God in every detail from the small to the impossibly large.

But that's a perception of faith, not a scientific theory.

My problem with ID is very much like my problem with Scientific Creationism. They both start with the conclusion and work backwards. The idea seems to be that you decide what you want the answer to be, then compile data to butress your position. If you know in your heart that your position is correct it's easy to imagine this is the best way to proceed.

That method is appropriate for winning a debate, and both Creationism and ID are usually presented as issues for debate by their champions. The problem is, science and debate don't have the same goals or rules. In debate you have a desired outcome and you push to get there. In science you have to go where the information takes you. You have to let go of your desires and preconceptions.

I believe that ID is correct in its fundamental assumptions, that the universe was created by an intelligence. I further believe that this intelligence is God. When it comes to ID as a statement of faith I am on their side.

Unfortunately ID hasn't (and probably cannot) produce any way to test these assumptions. The reasoning of its proponents is a clever debate strategy but it doesn't follow scientific method. In other words, it doesn't help us to understand the universe any better. When that's the case with any idea it really doesn't matter if the assumptions are correct or not. It's not a scientific theory, and teaching it as one would be dishonest.

It's not a question of science vs. faith in the end. It's a question of letting answer the "how" questions it is so admirably suited to handle, and letting faith deal with the "who."