Replies

Wow, that was John West of the Discovery Institute saying that! They used to use the "S" word right on their website for the first few years of their ID crusade but had since backed away from such forthright words.

The Discovery Institute, the chief proponent of ID, does not advocate teaching the concept in school,

This is a recent change, incidentally. I think they changed their tack after the Ohio fiasco in 2002. Or maybe it was last year's Georgia sticker ruling that went completely against the IDC's. But I digress...

but it would revise the definition of science and nature.
"How do we understand nature? Is it matter and energy? Or is it matter and energy and information?" said John G. West, the associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "We object to the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism."

IOW, information is not a natural phenomenon; it must be supernatural. Another interesting passage...

In its pretrial memorandum, the defense says it will argue that openness to a what might now be considered a "supernatural" explanation for creation does not place ID "beyond the bounds of 'science.'" Nor does this make ID "inherently religious," the memo says.

It will be fascinating to see if the ACLU lawyer asks any ID witnesses how they expect a scientist to go about detecting or measuring a supernatural act that happened in the distant past.

You creationists: How would you expect a scientist to distinguish between a supernatural act that happened in the distant past vs. a natural occurrence that we just don't understand yet?