There's a danger of circular reasoning here-ID is the way things
must be theologically, so the evidence must fit ID and my theology is
supported by this evidence. I don't know of any one individual making this
error, but the combination of different people with different approaches
taken wrongly as a unified whole leads to trouble (e.g., the "Behe has
disproven evolution" impression one gets from some of the sympathetic
reviews of ID).
Additionally, some ID claims have been based on Platonism or
similar philosophical views, yet are presented as more generally theistic
or Biblical in their basis. Consistent application of one's worldview is
good, but the base for these views needs better scrutiny and openness.
There is also a danger of ignoring those results that don't seem to
fit one's philosophy or theology. The purported exchange between Hegel and
a student ("But professor, the facts are otherwise!" "So much the worse
for the facts.") is an overt example. I'm concerned by statements like
those of Moreland in Creation Hypothesis where he suggests that a
scientific theory may be in trouble if it contradicts one's philosophical
or theological beliefs. It's also possible that the philosophical or
religious beliefs are in trouble-careful examination of both is necessary.
David C.