While I am a historian and not a scientist and that may make a difference, I am really confused about what the problem is here. If the issue is that ID has never stood up to scientific questioning isn't that what the article is trying to solicit? Or is it that you can't have a religious faith of any kind and still be considered a scientist?  Didn't Einstein himself speak of the roles God must have had?  I am both a historian and a Christian and am not ashamed of either one and don't see them as conflictual.  Where are the major differences in creationism and evolution except for the time allotments? A story written 2000 years ago got the order of creation right according to evolutionists, this must say something.  The recent Archaeological digs show there was a city of David right where it should have been. 

Its not just the Christian Religion either, if you've read the Utah Gold Rush you'll see that modern day science, history, and archaeology are close to proving the Aztec legends of the seven gold mines from their spiritual heritage.  It seems to me it would make a lot of sense to use the history of people's faiths as a stepping stone to explore scientific and historic possibilities rather than to waste all the research theologians and philosophers have already collected.

 

Annmarie Zan