I agree.
>but to imagine that Christian scientists are simply cowed
>by atheism, or to pretend that the issue is a purely scientific and
>theological one (in spite of the fact that every knows who the
>Intelligent Designer is supposed to be) does not help serious discussion
>of anything.
It is useful to make non-theological claims within ID-theories -- for
example, that analysis (for information content, chemical equilibria in
prebiotic scenarios,...) would only be capable of providing support for a
claim that there *is* intelligent design, not *who* the designer is, or
about the characteristics or motivations of the designer(s).
But I agree that since "every knows who the Intelligent Designer is
supposed to be," discussing theological issues (and clarifying them in what
is written or spoken -- at least to the extent of repudiating "God of the
gaps" implications -- would be useful.
And, yes, there are other reasons besides being "cowed by atheism" to
support MN. {as stated earlier, I'm still debating this one internally; I
am impressed by the arguments of Phil and other ID-advocates, and also by
some arguments for MN, such as those by O'Connor in his paper in the June
PSCF -- and the issues are so complex that it will take some time to
process}
Craig R