Exactly - maybe He did. Or maybe the final product was part of His master plan at the moment the universe was created and He didn't have to "lift a Finger" once things were set in motion. We'll probably never know. My point is that these sort of things aren't scientific questions.
More like looking for His fingerprints, I'd say...
I see God's fingerprints every day. However, my personal experience (relevant as it is to me) is not a test of scientific rigor. The problem is, there is no way to differentiate (scientifically) between that which was directly designed by God and that which evolved naturally through processes we don't yet understand. If we try to differentiate, we encroach upon the limits of the scientific method.
ID as I understand it doesn't carry that risk.
I respectfully disagree. If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God. In other words, stating that something is designed by direct divine intervention just because we are incredulous as to its natural origins is premature. On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation. Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God.
"I see God's fingerprints every day. However, my personal experience (relevant as it is to me) is not a test of scientific rigor."
It would seem, then, that the scientific method as it now exists is inadequate to deal with some categories of real phenomena. The problem is the tendency to interpret that limitation as proof of the non-existence of such phenomena.
"If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God."
Yes, I have to agree with that. Such a risk does exist. But that would be a misapplication of ID, IMO.
"On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation."
Very true.
"Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God."
Yes, and I don't think ID should be trying to do that.
"ID as I understand it doesn't carry that risk."
I respectfully disagree. If we try to relegate a phenomena to intelligent design, and then subsequently discover that evidence points to the natural evolution of that phenomenon, we have, in effect, "blotted out a fingerprint" of God. In other words, stating that something is designed by direct divine intervention just because we are incredulous as to its natural origins is premature. On the other hand, if we have faith that God is the ultimate author of all natural laws, we have nothing to fear from such a revelation. Either way, science simply doesn't have the power to differentiate between our personal ignorance and the direct design of God.
Occasionally, slogging through these tedious threads one will stumble on a real gem. Thanks.