Moorad had similar reservations. It might help to re-read my letter.
Be VERY careful with the definitions of intelligent design and
intelligent designers.
First, I do not assume that "intelligent design" is an activity that
is accessible only by the divine. Note that many "design theorists"
think humans are capable of ID. Humans are perfectly acceptable,
"naturalistic" explanations for a lot of what you see around you --
The computer display in front of you, for example.
Second, I would not assume that the intelligent designer that some think
was required to deposit life on earth over the years would necessarily
be divine or supernatural. Therefore I am hestitant to rule out the
possibility that a naturalistic explanation for deposited life on earth
could also be ID or that such ID events could be understood to have
happened. For example, the "crop circles" observed in some farmers'
fields could have been formed by a) humans, b) skinheads from Mars,
c) Zeus, or d) something else. Possibilities "a"& "b" may be considered
"naturalistic explanations". Options "c" or "d" might be accessible
as testable explanations if the events occurred with discernable
regularities.
Of course, the question in the case of evolution is whether ID need
be invoked as a proximate explanation.
Moorad wrote:
"[...] God may be absent in the dynamical models of nature that
scientists construct by the very nature of science; however, God
is ever present in the real thing."
Then again, God may have set things up in such a way that some
questions about origins (such as the origins or life or various
species) can be addressed in a scientific context. For example,
Howard Van Till's model of a "fully gifted creation" could
permit scientific approaches to address some questions about
origins. The fact is, nobody knows, so I'm not going to try to
prejudge the likelihood af any particular outcome.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)