[Coyoteman]

The scientific notion of intelligent design is hard to debate without the intrusion of monotheism and atheism.

Why would you omit pantheism?

And what evidence would you bring to bear on the subject to support your opinion either way?

[Brad from Tennessee]

I haven’t thought of Pantheism since I was in school. I’m not a scientist but most of the ones I’ve met could be Pantheists. I grew up watching Carl Sagan and many of the prominent physicists I’ve seen interviewed do display an enthusism and sometimes childlike joy of what they are explaining.

As for monotheism the reviewer writes:

“. . .He (Behe)was denounced by the self-styled defenders of science - biologists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne, and non-scientists like Michael Ruse and Barbara Forrest. They accused Behe. . . of trying to slip God (disguised as “the intelligent designer”) into public-school science classrooms.”

This controversy has been going on for awhile. Some of the scientific community fears that if ID is recognized as a valid alternative theory it can be interpreted by religious groups as a “scientific proof of God” and used as a political or legal argument to “pollute” education and science with religion.

I appreciate that the scientific method, in order to accomplish anything, can’t be mixed up with religion or mysticism or anything else because the scientist can become a root doctor casting juju.

As for atheism, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary scientist and author, reviewed Behe’s book for The New York Times. I can’t say for sure but I would guess Dawkins was asked to review the book because he is a critic of religion. Dawkins is a public, outspoken atheist. I believe Atheism is a religion. I can argue that but I can’t prove it.

As a layman I hope the scientific concept of Intelligence Design lingers long enough to be proved or disproved.