Yes!! both speak of design (see your note below) and I will not venture yet
into taking one over the other. I like ID a lot but ID does not exclude (IMO)
evolution. I tell you why a like ID. When you see the Empire State, do you
believe it is a miracle?, the human beings broke the laws of nature in putting
it together?. My answers to these questions are no and no, respectively -- It
is not a miracle and no laws were broken. So if humans can do such amazing
works why can't God do the same? I see no reason to restrict God's modus
operandi to evolution just as I see no reason to restrict Him to special
interventions. He continues to work in mysterious ways -- Rom. 11:33 Oh,
the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
his judgments, and his *paths* beyond tracing out!
Salu2
Eduardo
David Campbell wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >We do know of structures in the cell that challenge any evolutionary
> >>explanation. In any case, IDers are not claiming (in my opinion) that
> >>everything is ID, rather they are finding things that *seem* to be IC, and if
> >>they are truly IC they really challenge any evolutionary pathway in favor of
> >>an ID.
>
> To claim that something could not have evolved without intervention rejects
> the possibility that God could have designed the relevant natural laws,
> sequence of events, and environmental conditions such that life would
> evolve. [He's also actively involved in all of this taking place-I'm not
> endorsing deism]. If God is omnipotent, He can make evolution work without
> miracles, but it requires omniscience and omnipotence to carry this out. A
> specific example comes from Darwin's Black Box-Behe rejects the option of
> having just the right high-energy particle from space hitting the DNA of
> some organism so as to cause just the right mutation in favor of
> intervention, yet both speak of design in different ways.