> If Michael is right, then intelligent design would seem
> to be a most reasonable explanation - but surely not the only one. As
> Glen's example suggests, there might be other explanations. For those of
> us who believe in a Creator, we need to realize that "doing in" natural
> selection does not "do in" the possibility of, nor the inventiveness of
> man to find, other naturalistic explanations. Intelligent design is not
> so easily established.
>
> As I suggested in an earlier posting, I believe evidence for intelligent
> design will never PROVE the necessity of God's existence, but it surely
> can, and should, play an important apologetic role - to strengthen our
> faith.
This is "theistic realism" of a different kind :-)
This is a comment worthy of further attention. There is a danger
that the "Intelligent Design" movement be interpreted as a revival of
"Natural theology". This is something I would not be happy with.
For me, ID is a statement of presuppositions, not a "finding" of
science. If we do not start with God in our thinking, we will never
"prove" the existence of God by our research.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***