Well, there's a difference: ID is not religion, and no-one is attempting to teach transubstantiation, resurrection, and immaculate conception in science classes.

What is or is not being taught in science classes is immaterial. (Oo, nice accidental pun.) And, yes, ID is religion. More to the point, ID is Christianity. That life on Earth was created by a guiding intelligence is basic Christian doctrine.

I thought belief in the resurrection was already optional in the Church of England, and transubstantiation is regarded as idolatrous in the Protestant churches (certainly the Scottish ones). I can't remember being told anything about the immaculate conception.

So, it seems like that at least some of your suggestion has already been dealt with by the Reformation.

Well, ID is religion masquerading as science. Since the Church believes that dishonesty is sinful, ID!=Christianity, and appealing to the Church to come out against it is a good strategy. In fact the Catholic Church has already issued statements against it.

The fact that life on Earth was created by a single supernatural entity was in first discovered by Avraham Avinu, and copied by Christianity and Islam. Does this make ID Jewish or Islamic?

That life on Earth was created by a guiding intelligence is also basic Jewish and Islamic doctrine, yes. However, ID has been developed and advanced by Christians.

> the Catholic Church has already issued statements against it.

The Vatican aren't stupid. Evolution has proven to be pretty damned convincing, probably because it's right. They could stick to their original teachings and haemorrhage believers or they can adopt the new science-and-religion-address-different-issues approach. ID is just a modern restatement of what used to be a philosophically and scientifically respected Christian argument. For most of the Church's history, the idea that Christianity doesn't really address the question of biological diversity would have been considered utterly absurd. They've retreated.

> transubstantiation is regarded as idolatrous in the Protestant churches

What, including fish into loaves?

I didn't realise that the feeding of the five thousand involved transubstatiation. I had thought that it referred to communion bread turning into the body of Christ - hence the idolatry: a piece of bread being worshipped as if it were God. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I don't remember any any fish being turned into loaves. Wasn't it two fish and five loaves miraculously becoming lots of fish and lots of loaves?

Oops. You are of course right. Don't know where that came from — though my just having come to on the sofa under a dog a few minutes ago might be a clue to this evening's state of alertness.

Arguably, turning thin air into lots of loaves and fishes is transsubstantiation, but I know that's not how the miracle is generally viewed. But didn't one of Jesus's miracles involve turning one thing into another thing? Or did I dream it?

Right, bed for me.

His miracle involved turning water into wine. He was at a wedding when they ran out of wine, apparently.

Oddly enough, I've just got out of bed at 3am to get a drink of water, to discover a very drunk room-mate downing a bottle of wine. When he runs out, I refuse to perform any miracles for him.

Water into wine. Of course. How embarrassingly stupid to have forgotten that one. Anyway, I take it that belief in that bit of transsubstantiation isn't regarded as idolatrous.

No. But the transubstantiation of wine into the blood of Christ is.

Perhaps transubstantiation has a capital 'T' when it refers to the idolatrous sort?

Perhaps, but that would be rather odd: capitalising the miracle when it's performed by a mere priest but not when it's performed by Jesus himself? Those crazy Christians. Laugh a minute, I tell you.

I suppose that's one way of looking a it.

They would be capitalising the miracle when the bread and wine are turned into Jesus himself, but not when water is turned into mere wine.

I can appreciate that, to an atheist (or at least, to a non-Christian) the whole transubstantiation thing must sound pretty ludicrous, whether we're talking about water into wine, or wine into the blood of Christ. I've no problem with that - if one believes that there is no god, and that the "laws of nature/physics" are what created the universe, and that no-one and nothing can ovveride those laws, then sure, the whole idea is madness. But if one accepts the idea of God as the one who determined the laws of physics in the first place (and therefore is "over and above" such laws), then the idea of transubstantiation (or "miracles" or whatever) is not so far-fetched. The thinking goes something like "God created matter, he likes it. Why should/could he not be capable of substantiating Himself into part of that matter? After all, we all live in a material world, and if we are to "find God" in this existence, why should he not manifest himself within the material plane? Actually, the whole basis of Christianity itself is rooted in transubstantiation (God, the supreme "spiritual being" becomes Man in the person of Christ). If one can accept that that is possible, then it takes even less of a jump to accept that God can somehow substantiate himself into the bread and wine of what we Christians call "holy communion" or "the eucharist". It's all a question of perspective.

In other words, miracles don't seem so far-fetched to people who believe in miracles. Thanks for pointing that one out, Tom. Who are you arguing with, though? No-one here has mentioned that transsubstantiation is ludicrous.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to Andy Wood's comment about transub/n being regarded as idolatrous in the Protestant churches. Yes, I know he did not say "ludicrous", but I was questioning why some churches see it as idolatrous. I wonder is it because they regard the very idea as ludicrous, or do they think that while it is theoretically OK, it's just not the case in this instance? And so my argument was aimed not at you, but at those churches. What I was getting at was "people who already believe in miracles such as the idea of God becoming a man, should not find it such a difficult step to believe that this same god might also "put the essence of himself" into bread and wine". I accept that the point is entirely irrelevant to an atheist!

I wonder is it because they regard the very idea as ludicrous, or do they think that while it is theoretically OK, it's just not the case in this instance?

I'm only guessing here, but I think the doctrine is that only God can perform miracles, and the notion that a mere priest can perform miracles is regarded as blasphemous.

Therefore, contrary to the Catholic Church's claim, communion bread does not become the body of Christ and it is idolatrous to view it as such.

Andy, thanks. I understand that your reply does not necessarily mean that you agree with those Protestant churches, so please be assured that I'm not arguing with you as such, (and I hope Squander2 does not mind me continuing this argument on his blog, after all he is an atheist and so this must be an absolute burning issue to him!!) But - if that is the argument of the Protestant churches, then I think it is misconstrued. Speaking as a practising Catholic, I can say that no priest claims that he himself is performing a miracle of any sort. The priest merely prays to God and asks Him to do the miracle. He says something along the lines of "we ask that, through the Holy Spirit, this bread and wine may become for us the body and blood of Christ".
We also recall Christ's words that "anyone who believes in me will do what I have been doing -in fact, he will do even greater things than me, as I am going to the Father", and also "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life within him". At the end of one of the Gospel books (Mark, I think?) doesn't Jesus say, "these signs will follow all who place their trust in me....the sick upon whom they place their hands will recover"? Who is doing the miracle there, Christ himself, or the believer? It's God, obviously. Both Catholic and Protestant churches have certain people gifted by the power of the Holy Spirit with the ministry of healing. In all cases, the minister never claims that it is he/she him/herself that is performing any miracle, but they are merely asking God to do so.
(Sorry, Squander, I don't mean to turn your comments pages into something you have no time for. I respect your personal theological position, but I hope you find this stuff interesting nonetheless!)

Oh, I find Communion fascinating.

Like I said, I was only guessing. You'll have to find someone who actually knows some theology if you want to argue the subtle nuances. I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith is the primary source for the doctrines of British Protestantism.

Don't let your priest know you've been reading it, though. It's full of stuff about the Pope being the Anti-Christ and the like.

Wow, that is a fascinating post you linked back to, Sq2. I hadn't read it before. And it has left me wondering. Gonna have to think about that one, and ask a few friends their opinions. Afterwards, I hope to post back.

OK, getting back to you on that whole Communion issue...
Yes, I suppose that technically there should be at least a trace of wheat in the bread. However, Christianity is a religion of "relationship" much, much more than it is a religion of strict rules and regulations. I've heard of severely disabled or terminally ill "nil by mouth" patients for whom the mere brief touching of the bread upon the lips is counted as "receiving" communion. Similarly, in many churches where the wine (blood of Christ) is passed round, often the cup is drained before everyone has a chance to take a sip. It doesn't matter - if the intention of the person was to take a sip, then it is counted as having been received.

But that's a very different issue, isn't it? The merest brush of the lips against Christ's body versus the merest brush of the lips against some rice; or running out of Christ's blood before you get a sip versus running out of some Ribena before you get a sip.