ID in USA Today

In this article last week in the USA Today, Gerald Zelizer, a conservative rabbi, gives a fair and balanced discussion of the unending controversy on teaching about origins ("creation science" vs. evolution vs. "intelligent design").

This passage, though, I can't agree with:

Yet, the gaps between the theories of evolution and intelligent design overwhelm any overlap. Evolution makes specific propositions that are testable, provable and disprovable through a measurable and observable process that takes place in nature. That categorizes it as science. Intelligent design, on the other hand, cannot be proved or disproved by natural evidence because its design is supernatural. That categorizes it as religion.

I wouldn't make the distinction in this way. Instead, I would categorize science as a systematic study of nature and theology as the systematic study of God's revelation. "Religion" is one of those things that is hard to define, but we know it when we see it.