"The _theological_ problem with the claims of Behe _et al_ & the
whole ID movement is that they insist that certain natural phenomena
_compel_ us - if we're intellectually honest - to acknowledge God at
work, & that independently of faith in Christ."
I am really puzzled at this assertion, George. At the NTSE, this idea was
thrashed out in excrutiating detail. AT NO TIME did I hear the ID folks
assert any such thing and on several occasions I am quite sure I heard
them specifically and pointedly deny such an idea.
What the ID folks do assert (IMHO, of course) is that certain natural
phenomenon suggest strongly an intelligence other than ours -- an
"intelligent agent," in Newton's terminology. There is no (IMHO again)
requirement that the IA be "God," or even a "supernatural" being(s).
There is also no asserting that the IA even exist! But there is an
assertion that the IA MAY exist, and that ingnoring that possibility (in
science) is a "bad thing."
Of course, I don't speak for the ID folks, even though I did publish in
the last O&D. I think one has to be a biologist to fairly take a position
on their claims. Being a physicist, "obsolete" at that, does not qualify
me in this respect.
Burgy
Burgy