As for his comments on my citations and comments, I feel that he has misinterpreted them. My first citation of Michael Behe is that he (one of the three pillars of ID) accepts a billions of years old universe and that all organisms share a common ancestry. Now while this may not be an all-out endorsement of Darwinism, it certainly blows holes in Biblical literalists views, and I suggested that his statement be spread liberally among them. I also stated that Behe’s presupposition is religious, and therefore not scientific. That’s hardly using him to support my position—quite the opposite.

I did not support the view that science "has nothing to do with religion" by citing Scott and Eldredge. Science has had plenty to do with religion by revealing the nature of the natural world. I wont take the space to requote, along with Juan’s interpretation. You can read it in the September and October Newsletters. (You threw them away? On request, I’ll send you copies.)

Juan has a valid objection to Scott’s statement that there is no vast disagreement between science and religion. I wish she had said "some religions’ ‘,and would guess that that is what she meant. After all, the mission of her work is to show up the differences between some religions and science/evolution. But Juan then weakens his position by trying to prove his point by suggesting that we clarify what WE mean by "religion". That would only prove the point for US, not for those who choose a different definition.

I am not aware that Eldredge ever said that scientists should not raise doubts about God’s existence. In the quote I offered, he criticized scientists who claim that their science "...demonstrates unequivocally that there is no God."

Juan is mistaken when he says that I apparently accept some of Behe’s argument for ID. I specifically state that I reject ID, even at the molecular level, but that I do so out of my position as a scientific materialist, rather than because I understand the evidence. (Can’t I be a little humble?) My understanding of the scientific materialist position is that all matter/energy phenomena have the potential to be explained by science, and not at all by supernatural explanations.

Now let’s get on to the important question, stated above.

The evidence is overwhelming that our schools are filled with pupils whose parents have some kind of religious belief These beliefs range from biblical literalism to scientific compatibility. We know that humans, in general, are reluctant to give up their religious beliefs. But as schools teach the the facts of evolution, as the media present them as accepted fact, and as museums display the evidence, religious people will adjust their beliefs for a better fit with science, even as scientists continue to narrow the reach of religion. To proclaim that science proves—that evolution demonstrates— that there is no deity, is not helpful to this process. I therefore accept the reasoning of Dr. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, that science is limited to explaining the natural world.