To me, ID concepts like "specified complexity" are simply attempts to solidify the scientific mysteries rather than continue searching for scientific explanations. In my view, ID appears to be just another search for scientific evidence of God. Consider what Phillip Johnson (the "Father of the modern ID movement") said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast

Most ID supporters I've talked to (and there have been quite a few lately) complain about how "methodological naturalism" is unfairly preventing ID from getting a fair shake in the scientific community. But interestingly, these same people often admit that natural causes are sufficient to explain most of natural history. If they can accept that the "Intelligent Designer" was "hands-off" most of the time, why is it so hard for them to accept that the "Intelligent Designer" might have been "hands-off" all of the time? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. They believe in God and they want to have scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Personally, I believe in God because I see "evidence" of Him everyday. When I look at my daughter, I see the grace of God and know that I am blessed. When I benefit from the compassionate acts of other believers, I feel the love of God and know that He is faithful. When I am in worship, I feel the powerful presence of God and know that He is holy. These experiences mean more to me than any "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagella ever will. Apparently, some believers need something more tangible.

From another email to a newspaper reporter:

First of all, let's make it clear that this is not an issue of "science vs. religion." There are many, many religious people, myself included, who have no problems with evolution, as long as it is not described as an "unguided" or "impersonal" process. Unfortunately, that is precisely the description of evolution found throughout the IDnet proposals. In my opinion, this philosophically-biased description amounts to "viewpoint discrimination," exactly the kind of thing that the minority of the committee claims to be trying to prevent.

An "objective" news story on this issue should point out that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community. This controversy is a socio-political one, often perpetuated by those who feel that science threatens their faith. They often misrepresent legitimate debates within the scientific community about the mechanisms of evolutionary change in an attempt to try to make it appear as though scientists are debating whether or not evolution actually happened. Such misrepresentations are disingenuous at best.

Personally, I believe that religious people should not have to deny reality in order to experience their faith. Although particular scientists are entitled to their viewpoints, science itself remains neutral on matters pertaining to religious belief. In my view, there is nothing about the science of evolution that denies the existence of a personal God.

When believers insert God into the gaps in our scientific knowledge, they set themselves up for disappointment. As the steady march of scientific progress continues, those gaps will likely be filled. As this happens, the "intelligent designer" will be pushed back into an ever-shrinking corner. This could spell disaster for those who base their faith in God on a perceived lack of scientific understanding.

posted by Jeremy Mohn @ 7:26 AM