Sorry, but I’m not seeing that, you have it backwards, and I think you know that.
Indeed Catholics and non-Catholics are mixing God and science, but not all of them.
Only the select bunch fitting into the category of “Creationist” and 'IDists" are doing
this. Theistic Evolution doesn’t mix God and science up, it is simply a view that ac-
cepts both without confusing one for the other, or attempting to fuse them together
into a “science.” That is what Intelligent Design is trying to do, fuse God/Religion
and Science together into a single view, and have it accepted by the world as a
real science.
Did you really type what you typed with a straight face?
I think you’re a bit confused. You have a picture of Jesus Christ so I’m going to try to be charitable. First of all, science says nothing about the existence of God. Yet scientists such as Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers are able to generate polemical attacks on religion and faith heads such as yourself. They also attack theistic evolutionists. These people philosophise and use “neo-darwinian evolution” to strengthen their belief in atheism and own metaphysical world views. Secondly the use of “unguided” is a non-scientific pronouncement. There is no scientific test for “guidance”. Often evolution is described so by “scientists”. Yet it is not a scientific statement. It’s an a priori assumption or an assertion not grounded in a scientific view but in one’s a priori worldview.
But your biggest mistake above is to think ID = Christian or theistic God did it. Not at all. ID people also consider the possibility that it could be aliens or some other being NOT NECESSARILY the God of the Old/New Testament. Of course there are people in ID who believe it is God. But it need not be. That’s a further metaphysical/philosophical import.
I’d like you to acknowledge at least this point. ID need not be about God. It can be about any designer - alien, future technology, this universe as a computer simulation, gods like Zeus, etc. Maybe the motivations from many of ID people are religion or spirituality, but that does not refute ID. That’s a really, a silly ad hominem. If you’re not making this assumption, I apologise. If you do, the take home message for you is that ID = not Creationism, in the relevant sense that everyone in the West worries over. “God in the clasroom” and other similar nonsense.
BTW Theistic Evolution can be referred to as a type of Creationism. You are a creationist yourself. If God did it by manipulating matter and energy, the people you may want to be impress are not going to be happy with you. That’s still Creationism, albeit some form of crypto variety.
The whole nerd rage about Creationism vs Evolution is not a question of Faith vs Science, but a paranoid worry that Christian religion may yet again achieve a legitimate place in polite, elite, Western European/US society (probably mostly English speaking society if I’d want to be more specific.) That cannot be allowed. Which means ID is by default about Christianity.
(Most people who debate this issue on the internet, I found, don’t do any real science at all. They make the common lay mistake that, not recognising common descent means all our science and research falls apart.)
