The Vatican and Intelligent Design

I must say, when Intelligent Design was first making news, I felt as though I was in favor of it. It sounded like a nice way to let it be known that we all didn't just appear from an ape- after all, who made the ape?
I read about it in TIME magazine- and how President Bush was pushing for the Intelligent Design teaching to be taught in the public schools.

Apparently many form the Vatican don't feel the same way.
"The director of the Vatican Observatory has lashed out at proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design, the Italian news service ANSA reports.
"Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be," said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes. ANSA reported that the Jesuit priest made his remarks at a conference in Florence.
Father Coyne had criticized Intelligent Design previously, in an article that appeared in October in the British Catholic newspaper, The Tablet. In that article, he took issue with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (bio - news), who had published an essay in the New York Times pointing to the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Whereas Cardinal Schönborn argued that a strictly material approach to evolution cannot answer ultimate questions about the origin of man, Father Coyne countered that critics of evolution are underestimating God's willingness to give "freedom" to the processes of nature."
(at this point I really appreciate Cardinal Schönborn's efforts)


Completing the article, I especially noticed the following 2 comments:
{posted by 'altar boy'} "Evolution, Fr. Coyne, isn't science, even if it pretends to be. Evolution is, in fact, mere speculation about the origins adevelopmentent of the universe. But, if Darwinian evolution is real, then it is so because an intelligent creator made it so."

{and by 'Hammer of Heretics'} "As is so often the case when it comes to religious who balk against intelligent design, it appears that Fr. Coyne misunderstands the science behind it. Intelligent design theory has nothing to do with creationism, it is about discerning case after case of "evolutionary" processes that could not have been the result of minor, random mutations. In other words, unless the part came into being in its entirety from the outset, it would have had no function whatsoever. This is a problem for Darwin."

So what is it? Are we wrong for supporting Intelligent Design? DOES it really belong out of the Science classroom?