"The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”
I believe in Evolution and I believe in the Bible and God. "Intelligent Design" satisfies both my beliefs.
Design is typically an iterative process.
The problem is that those two things are mutually exclusive. As your post said, Evolution is a process of random mutation and natural selection rather than a specific design.
But I still share your belief that there is no conflict between Genesis and Evolution. It's just that I think God created the very concept of "randomness" and "natural selection" at the core of Evolution. No conflict.
The Discovery Institute lost their earlier attempt to make a living promoting "Creationism" which ignored scientific evidence entirely. Now they've modified their stance enough to appear "scientific", and are having better luck forcing schools to include ID which basicaly claims that they have scientificly "proven" the existence of God via the creation of the earth.
That's where they loose me, because science can't be used to prove any diety. That might be nice, but sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
Could be taken that way. Belief in the Creator would not necessarily be part of a religion in itself, but could be part of a religious set of beliefs.
These two books pretty much convinced me and satisfies me as you seem to indicate regarding Intelligent Design.
“Nature’s Destiny” and “Life’s Solution”