Ninme wonders whether I'll take this article she agrees with apart ( it argues that religious people needn't be either creationist or ID-boosters --an interesting read as it shows how hot this topic is in Australia, too).
On the contrary, I agree with it and in two respects it says exactly what I was arguing. In the post that started our cross-blog discussion, I made the point that 6-day creationism actually does violence to the Genesis text, since it is a didactic text meant to teach man who he is, not a scientific text explaining how he got here. I also emphatically agree with the closing point that the key issue for Catholics isn't biological mechanism, it's simply holding that at some point God infuses the soul. (See JP II on the topic, eg).
However, I do bridle at the identification of Intelligent Design theory with creationism. Every time ID shows up in print, no matter who's discussing it, you immediately realize that no one is actually reading the ID scientists themselves. If the anti-creationist forces actually read some, they would find nothing more than a critique of some bad science and the revival of Aristotelian natural philosophy. If the pro-creationist forces actually read some, they would find that the chief ID scientists outright reject the creationist view and that they aren't really on the same side.
As for myself, the only dog I have in the race is the one that insists that faith is not the enemy of reason.
