ID v. Science: a largely unnecessary debate

So, I've been trying to write up an interview of a man who specialises in several things I know nothing about, namely heavily mustached German philosophers and Kurdish nationalism. Somehow, I ended up here. The internet is wonderful for meandering. I really don't know why it's called web surfing. It's more like hopscotch. Or skimming stones. Anyhow, it's an evangelist website for American teens, complete with diagrams:



Not quite as exciting as the Sistine Chapel. But so simple. So Powerpoint.



I prepared a decent sneer worthy of a Happily Lapsing Catholic. Part of lapsing, as Mel has told me recently, is that you are never, ever lapsed. Only ever a recovering Catholic. There is a section labelled "About God". I was really, really hoping it would be something like this:

"Hi, I'm God. I'm omniscient, omnipotent and the All-Encompassing Creator. But don't let that put you off. I've been around for quite a while. You might know me from such prodigious feats as creating the world in seven days. Phew. I was quite pleased at pulling off the difficult engineering feat of constructing a woman from a rib. Basically, I'm your local deity. Look me up sometime. And welcome to my website. Feel free to look around. Leave me a message or send me a picture of your firstborn."

Or something. But sadly, nothing like that eventuated. I did find a neat little description of Intelligent Design, via the famed Watch Analogy. Have you read it? It reminds me of the old chestnut about a tree falling in the woods. This time, the argument goes that if you find a watch in the woods and no-one is around, it's logical to infer a watch-maker, because it's too complex to make itself.

Most scientists and liberal opinion-makers have treated Intelligent Design as a trumped-up joke. Which it is, if it were to be treated as plausible competition for evolution in schools. But what I find interesting about the whole debate is that it represents an attempt by Christians to come to terms with evolution, to reconceptualise evolution as a major tool that a creator may have used to produce humans. While it also represents a flexing of the Christian political muscle that's been accumulating mostly unheralded for several decades, it still represents an accomodation with science, similar to the acceptance of the Copernican revolution or the printing press. At last, it seems, Christians are making their peace with their monkey brothers. The Casios to our Rolexes, or something.