William,

I love your column. However, this article is just a thinly veiled attempt to bring a Creator into the realm of science. It seems to me you had to crowbar in the very last sentence. With Templeton involved I guess there can be no other conclusion.

Did you miss the definition of God in the article? Neither a father-god nor a creator necessarily (though Saletan allowed for one) but possibly just a grain the universe tends to cut along.

Show me where a personal God fits into the structure of the universe, and I'll believe it. To me the structure (if you can call it that) looks like an argument against a creator, if by that you mean something apart from creation.

Mr. Saletan, your blog has some interesting atheist friends at the "Better Humans" blog where I posted an interesting porosal for something near what you suggest. Here is the link:

<link>

It's not a creator-of-the-universe model for God, but it is certainly food for thought I think you'll find irresistable.

Mentioning Templeton in a religious article is like a cigarette lobbyist mentioning research done by Robert Morris--it almost instantly invalidates the point you are trying to make! The article read well and I think there is a place for deism in science for the time being, but how many people who look to discredit evolution are simply deists? If they are smart enough to look past the BS that is organized religion then chances are they're smart enough to get on board with Darwin.

The article makes a lot more sense when you read in "the concept of God" when he says "God".