Ping to an "ID" article with some "real meat on its bones"...
In what way is that marvelous? I have no problem with this. Why do you? Please explain.
Good grief, TXnMA -- would you define ID this way? (I wouldn't.) I never understood ID to argue that God tinkers with creation on a constant basis. I figure the original design (i.e., the singularity, which I think of as a sort of "algorithm from inception" that I identify with the Logos) is so good He doesn't have to. So I think ID is an attempt to elucidate the fundamental mathematics that constitute the order of the universe, and how creatures access/are shaped by it. FWIW
I think this author has been hanging out in Cambridge too long. It's made his brain go soft.
To give you an idea of wacky Cambridge, last week the city elections were held. So a local Boy Scout troop decided they'd go to the polling places to hand out "Support Our Troops" flyers and collect items for "care packages" to send to our troops overseas. Twice they got permission from the city to do that. So, they set up -- and very quickly an "offended person" in Birkenstocks and pony tail got upset that this project of the Boy Scouts was "too pro-war," and demanded that the Scouts get booted from all Cambridge polling places. And so they were. Now the mantra in Cambridge is "I don't support the war, but I support our troops." Turns out they don't even do that: To support the troops is pro-war, you see.... If this reasoning weren't so appalling it would be risible. But that's how people think in Cambridge, if you can call it thinking.
Plus the other thing about this author's piece that I dislike is his association of science with politics. This to me is an "unholy connection." But then, in Cambridge, everything's political....
But you've "done time" in Massachusetts before TXnMA; so probably you will not find this story at all surprising. :^)