I can understood the secular science antagonism to intelligent design, but I can’t understand the antagonism from Catholics and other Christians.

Much the same question is asked regularly on the usual kind of blog, where inevitably more heat than light is generated (and, of course, God began by creating light). Here's the Catholic response:

• from a theological point of view the Intelligent Design hypothesis is fine;
• from a philosophical point of view the Intelligent Design hypothesis is fine;
• from a scientific point of view Intelligent Design is wrong.

More could be said, but the wrongness of ID requires scientific and technical insight — not theology and philosophy. And that particular insight is in short supply. It needs a good understanding of biology, and a good understanding of mathematics. Following the tracks of how evolution works also goes into the heart of how the world works, and even links into the predictive processes of quantum mechanics, and cosmological origins. It's utterly beautiful — as you'd expect.

The commenter writes:

Science is a methodology for creating and proving theories through observation and experimentation.

Certainly.

If you cannot perform experiments and observations on supernatural beings, than you can neither prove nor disprove the ID theory.

If ID makes the claim "this set of events can only be explained by appeal to the direct intervention of a supernatural agency", and science can show a natural process that does explain the events, then science has proved ID false. This is exactly what science is in the middle of doing. Claims involving the supernatural can be falsified, and in that way can be investigated in an entirely normal scientific way.

You don’t set up theories to prove them wrong. You create theories based on observation and experimentation.

It’s routine in science to attempt to disprove theories. Certainly, all the scientists I’ve worked with would prefer to have their theories proved; but they are quite happy to see theories disproved (preferably other peoples!).

Furthermore, the promotion of pseudoscience in school and the media is incredibly frustrating to the scientific community, because it hinders the advancement of science.

It is hindering science in some ways. But it does give publicity that otherwise science would never get, and that helps. It also helps the scientific community itself decide on what science is.

Also since the days of Darwin, an incredible amount of work has been done on evolution. It’s sad to see people still believe that most of what we know about evolution still comes from Darwin’s observations.

I’m not an expert in what other people know. I read Darwin’s more important works some time ago, and have more knowledge of modern genetics, and the foundational mathematics for all kinds of evolution.

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

The first phrase here is a strange way to word the results of using the scientific method: Did Darwin "logically derive" his theory? It's better described as an induction by him. For example, Darwin lacked any evidence for the kind of genetic inheritance necessary to support his theory — and one cannot derive anything from what doesn't exist.

And is the possession of confirmable evidence something necessary in order to have a useful science, so that it can be usefully taught? Not at all. For example, string theory provides little confirmable evidence for some of its applications, but is still usefully teachable. And Darwin's Origin of Species was, at the time of its first publication, quite definitely teachable science, even though it lacked any confirmable evidence for the particular kind of genetic inheritance necessary to support the theory. Clearly the goal of the scientific method is to have confirmable evidence, but it is not something that must be possessed at every intermediate point. Teachable science can exist without confirmable evidence.

Move on in the quoted sentence: "evolution is understood to be". I am not sure why is does not simply say "evolution is". Perhaps it sounded too definitive to the writers.

More: "the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection". Unfortunately, it takes a long time to indicate the ways in which this is a greatly misleading statement. It's little appreciated that evolution is the operation of a mathematical algorithm. It's impossible for it to operate in an unguided way — though we should have to carefully understand what kind of "guidance" is necessary. No kind of evolution can operate unless some kind of order is given to it. Ultimately biological evolution relied, and relies, as it mathematically must, on the order present around us in the universe. Saying "evolution is unguided and unplanned" is the same as saying "the universe is unguided and unplanned". And how do the Nobel prize winners know that? Do they have some confirmable evidence for it?

It's most peculiar. In the guise of attacking something they see as not being "logically derived from confirmable evidence", the Nobel laureates themselves leave the field of science and make such statements themselves!

Moving on:

In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.

Now here they do not like ID because it relies on the intervention of something supernatural. If they simply attacked ID as a scientific theory, using the methods of science, they would, I am confident, in fact find it easy to defeat. But having moved onto the field of the supernatural, they move onto what is, for them, exceedingly slippery ground. What exactly is it about the scientific method that might rule out its use with the supernatural? I do not see what it is. I do not think science is so weak that it can be so easily rendered inapplicable.

An example: suppose someone claimed they could cause, at will, by some supernatural means, a falling body to repeatedly deviate from its predicted path of motion. Because the claim is made that it is done by a supernatural agency, does it follow that scientists should throw up their hands, and disavow any way of investigating such a claim? Why not still measure the path of the object, its momentum, and search for all possible causes of the effect. Science can happily do this, and happily investigate and test the phenomenon. Of course it can.

Do I think that such a repeatable experimental demonstration of the supernatural is going to take place? No; never. (I do not think the supernatural works that way.) But if it did, I would go right ahead and use the scientific method to investigate it, and I would expect (going with the hypothetical assumption that it is a real supernatural event) that science could prove that it was a supernatural event. I don't see why science should ever give up in the face of the supernatural.

More:

Differences exist between scientific and spiritual world views, but there is no need to blur the distinction between the two. Nor is there need for conflict between the theory of evolution and religious faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Neither should feel threatened by the other.

But in what way does an appeal to a supernatural agency "blur" the difference between the different world views? Precisely because science is an autonomous means of investigating the world it is not be necessary have to give up the scientific method in the face of the supernatural. There is no blurring. Even if a scientific claim is from a religious, spiritual, or supernatural point of view, it is still a scientific claim, and subject to science's autonomous methods.

ID is certainly wrong in its scientific claims, and it is science that can show this.

Such "discussions" occur frequently enough on the internet, and are quite capable of continuing indefinitely without my help. But taking them within the context of the Catholic Church, a more significant question can be raised: does Intelligent Design constitute a threat to the well-being of Catholics?

I should briefly point out my own positions:

• the classical idea of evolution (inheritance, variation, selection) is correct (and not merely correct, but unavoidable);
• ID is, in its essentials, incorrect;
• the over-claims of materialists (e.g. Dawkins) are incorrect, for both scientific reasons, and because they are in opposition to Catholic teaching.

What threats exist? I can see four threats to Catholics believing in ID

Firstly, it is not consistent with the dignity of any human being to think something true that is false. By itself, that is perhaps not too dangerous. No doubt we all think some things that are not true, and that does not always prove to be a threat. (However wrong it may be to think that Paris is in Australia, in most circumstances it would not hurt me gravely.)

Secondly, it potentially brings Catholics into disrepute with others. This was was pointed out by Augustine a long ago. If some Catholics think incorrectly on some issue that is well known and understood by others, then they may provide a weaker witness to those others. That is a much graver problem than the first.

Thirdly, anyone discovering the falsity of ID may (quite incorrectly) have their faith in the Catholic Church weakened, perhaps seriously. That, too, may be a grave problem.

Fourthly, incorrect thinking may impede the development of details in Catholic teaching. (For example, given the strong role played by inheritance in the Old and New Testaments, any incorrect preconception in that area may hinder a fuller understanding of what is to be found there.)

Reading only books and articles written by ID proponents can be a real problem; they are not paid to describe the weaknesses in their own arguments. A better and deeper understanding of classical evolution would help. It would also help if there were more understanding that evolution can be described in very simple mathematical terms, since it is a principle that has very much wider application than biology. Properly understood, classical evolution offers glory to God.

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is –

1. a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence;
2. one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence;
3. don't you know enough about it to say?

35% picked (1), 35% picked (2), 29% picked (3), and 1% made no pick.

The Loom seems to think is possible that (3) should be included among the incorrect answers. But there are many possible reasons why someone might choose (3), such as: complete ignorance, limited prior study time, humility, being fearful of a follow-up question, or being unclear about the question actually means. I think to lump all possible meanings of choosing (3) under the category of simply being "wrong" is misleading.

The Loom gives one possible reason for picking (3) as the respondent being "uninformed". But the question actually asks the respondent if they are informed enough, which is quite a different thing. Someone may have read a lot, and realized that they do not have enough technical background to pick apart the claims and counter-claims.

The Gallup poll questions are a little unclear in places (though admittedly it's hard to phrase a question that's not somehow potentially unclear). For example, the reference to "Charles Darwin's" theory of evolution might throw things off a bit. If the respondent has heard of genetic drift, or punctuated equilibrium (both post-Darwin), or even heard garbled indirect references to such or similar topics, they may reasonably think that (2) sounds closer to an accurate answer.

The other questions in the poll are also unclear. One is:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings —

1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;
2. human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process;
3. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

From a Catholic point of view, (1) could be both true and false. True, in that the physical form of our bodies could derive from prior forms of life. False, in that our spirit did not so evolve. (2) can be rejected outright.

(3) is more tricky. Catholic teaching holds that a primary distinction between humans and animals is our possession of a spirit (so that would be a significant component of what would be understood as our "present form"). At what point in history did that first happen? Based on our current scientific picture, half a million years ago would seem too far back. And it seems unlikely that it could be any time more recent than about 50,000 years. Is 50,000 years within the ambit of "10,000 years or so"? If so,  then — paradoxically — a faithful Catholic could happily accept evolution, and still think (3) the closest choice to truth.

Another question in the poll, concerning literalness of the Bible, (which the poll summary puzzlingly calls "Biblical Literacy") is also problematic:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible –

1. the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word;
2. the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally;
3. the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

The best Catholic understanding of how to read the Bible is to take the literal meaning as being defined as the meaning that the author intended. With that usage of the word, both (1) and (2) are almost incoherent questions. (3) is true, but not the whole truth. It remains a puzzle as to which answer to give.

The discovery of a new species of human poses exciting questions about who we are.

But it is not clear why this should be. Exactly the same questions that Morris raises in his article would come up from consideration of Neandertal man (who existed to perhaps around 30,000 years ago). What little is known of the newly dated Homo floresiensis adds no new information to help address any of the questions that Morris raises. H. floresiensis hunted and made stone tools. But similarly the Neandertals. And even some modern apes make tools and hunt.

This is shattering news

Why? What has been shattered? (As far as I can tell, nothing.)

Suppose for a moment that a living tribe of these beings is discovered, how should they be treated?

Are they merely advanced apes, or are they miniature humans?

The article turns in an instant from a concrete scientific event to something purely speculative — and not even newly speculative. How can such a question be answered? It's certainly an intriguing question, but until we have an actual such hominid species in front of us, who can say? The newly dated H. Floresiensis adds no significant information to the question.

His very existence among us would make us question all over again what it is to be human.

We are not used to this because our ancestors successfully killed off all our close relatives.

There's very little concrete evidence that we actually killed off all our "close relatives", if "killed" refers to direct attacks. It's definitely a possibility. It's also possible that they died off from unsuccessful competition for resources (e.g. by unadaptable hunting techniques), or from a disease that wiped out their limited numbers, or for other reasons. However, Morris is spinning a specific extra-scientific story, one chosen by him from very many possible such stories.

This has created a chasm between us and the other animals

Morris is claiming that the chasm between us and other animals only exists because we killed off our "close relatives" and thus that we would see no chasm if we could only examine one of these "close relatives". It's a claim with extremely limited scientific support. Merely tools and hunting do not comprise what it is to be human. Human culture is very much wider than that.

a chasm so big that religion went as far as to say that we are not even related to them. Humans have souls and they do not.

Possession of a difference does not deny similarities. A lack of relation in one way does not mean that there are not relations in other ways. (It's hard to say more in response since "related" is a word capable of wide meaning, and Morris does not give much clue as to exactly what he has in mind.) That man is a rational animal is an old idea, continued and developed (for example) by Aquinas. So, the similarities and differences between humans and other have always been apparent.

Darwin put a stop to this nonsense with his theory of evolution

Actually, the denial of relatedness to animals, in the sense that Morris probably intends, only began at the point when Darwin wrote. Prior to that point in time, the kind of relatedness that Darwin discovered was essentially not even thought about, and consequently not deniable. And while there has certainly been resistance post-Darwin to that kind of physical relatedness, it has not been uniform throughout religion (despite what Morris implies).

but amazingly the blindingly obvious truth he discovered is still resisted by large sections of the human population.

I suspect that continued dispassionate explanation of evolution, sticking closely to what is known, and avoiding any kind of exaggeration, would go a very long way to overcoming resistance. A dash of science and a large helping of extra-scientific story-telling is exactly not the way to go about producing an appetizing meal; else what should be resisted is mixed up with what should not.

They stubbornly continue to insist that we are some kind of special creation.

If "special creation" is taken in the sense of "possesses an immortal spirit", then yes, many will continue to claim just that. How does Morris propose to disprove it scientifically?

The arrival of "Mini-Man" is going to give them nightmares.

Yet again, Morris does not indicate why.

How can he be "semi-special"? That won't make sense. He can't very well have a semi-soul.

Word games.

If on the other hand we discover that they have some kind of spoken language and we can learn that language, or alternatively they can learn ours, then we are into a whole new ball-game.

Since we already know that apes can use signs to communicate, merely understanding that language may tell us nothing particularly interesting — it depends on what kind of information gets exchanged in that language.

When it comes down to it, being able to talk is really what defines humanity.

Certainly the possession of language is very important. But is it a definition? If we met this speculative "Mini-Man", and its adult conversation was one long stream of "Look at tree. Look at banana. Get banana. Arm hurts." I think we would soon be persuaded that language was not quite so definitive.

In theory, the existence of Mini-Man should destroy religion

How ever?