It has already been extensively documented what I think of Intelligent Design, but I'll say it again: As a person of faith, I am deeply offended by the assertation that faith and science are incompatible, and I am deeply troubled by a faith where God is defined by a set of cheap parlor tricks. And I am even more deeply offended by the assertation that my faith is somehow lacking because I don't buy into this perversion of both science and religion.

But it just keeps getting worse, doesn't it? Creationists are going after the Big Bang. Insisting that "theory" be added to every mention of it because "The Big Bang is not proven; it is just an opinion."

Here's the thing. I don't agree that evolution and religion are incompatable. But I can at least understand how someone might hold that belief. But the Big Bang is even less incompatible with faith. Mr. Deutsch (You know, I am not quite sure how that's meant to be pronounced, but I have a theory that I like. Because he is one. Possibly the Biggest One In The Universe [.5 points]) suggests that "It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

Where does the Big Bang theory say that? Where does it say what caused the Big Bang? See, evolution makes a good choice for IDers to pick on because it explains where human beings came from, and it's an explanation that does not require a divine being (Neither, of course, does it preclude one). It explains a series of natural processes which have resulted in there being humans. The Big Bang, on the other hand, does not do this. There is no "First there was something else, then these processes caused the universe to exist." The Big Bang theory starts with "And then the universe started existing." There was no time or space before the universe started existing, so it doesn't make sense in terms of the theory to talk about something "causing" the universe to happen, because there weren't any things around to cause it beforehand. For that matter, there wasn't even a "beforehand", because time hadn't started happening yet. It doesn't say the universe could or could not have come into existence without a God -- it makes no claim as to what triggered the creation of the universe, and instead makes it very clear that there can't be a scientific explanation for what actually made the universe start existing.

All the Big Bang theory says (well, actually, it says quite a lot about the complex details about which order various things happened in, but for the sake of this argument, I don't think they matter or have anything to do with the creationist ire) is that the universe had a beginning. That it came from somewhere (or, well, actually, from nowhere), and hasn't always existed in its present form. So, let's see. You've got a theory which says that "At some point in the past, the universe came into existence, and there is no natural process pre-existing the universe that could have caused it". Or, if you prefer, In The Beginning, there was nothing, then the LORD said "LET THERE BE LIGHT" and there was light.

This conflicts no more with religion than the theory of universal gravitation conflicts (After all, it gives an explanation for the mechanics of how gravity works that goes beyond "God does it").

And as usual, you don't have to take my word for it. The Catholic church accepted the Big Bang theory decades ago. There are Islamic scholars who find the Big Bang to be in keeping with the version of creation told in the Qur'an. Hindu and Buddhist scholars have even come up with models which allow for the Big Bang. Evolution is incompatable with a certain kind of (IMHO very naieve and small-minded) faith structure. The Big Bang is not incompatable with ANY KIND of faith structure, at least, not one any sane one.

I think it's time to start asking what the creationists are really trying to accomplish. It doesn't have anything to do with faith. It must be something else.