> The problem I would have with that is the claim (unsupportable in my
> opinion) that Intelligent Design makes that one can infer ID based on
> _scientific_ evidence. This is a theological overstatement. In order to
> make this inference, I would have to know the intentions of the Creator and
> be able to match those up in every case with what I can discover about the
> created order. Since I am warned against such hubris (knowing God's mind,
> or the totality of creation) in scripture, I won't make the ID claim. It
> seems much more honest (and scriptural) to loudly proclaim both the
> seemingly unintelligible and senseless nature of many aspects of the
> creation (See Job about the stupidity of the ostrich...) as well as the
> loving operation of a God who cares even for those who don't know Him (Acts
> 14:17). To put it as bluntly as possible, Intelligent Design is making a
> claim contrary to scripture. For me, the fact that it is also
> unrecognizeable as science is secondary.
>
Thanks, Larry, for some intelligent thought about the notion of "intelligent
design". It was never an attractive idea to me; seems like a euphemism, like
"agent causation". Or not exactly a euphemism, but a scientific-sounding phrase
that amounts to nothing new, just warmed-over natural theology. Why don't these
people simply talk about God the Creator? Who else would fit the bill?
Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
73367.1236@compuserve.com arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084