The thing that strikes me as odd about "Designer" is this line: "To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material." Insofar as Intelligent Design treats its designer as one who works using existing material, it only describes a semi-Platonic demiurge.
I've forgotten whether Behe et al. think God created ex nihilo a new gene sequence or cellular structure for a given creature or simply directly tweaked the creature's pre-existing structures, but the very awkwardness of either option on both theological and scientific grounds makes me wary of their school of thought, no matter how much I like how it has shaken men from their slumbers.
The ID'ers recognize this, as far as I know. I'm not concerned that the theory can be reconciled with non-monotheistic belief, because it seems to be merely an extension of the natural law, which is known by all people.
I've forgotten whether Behe et al. think God created ex nihilo a new gene sequence or cellular structure for a given creature or simply directly tweaked the creature's pre-existing structures, but the very awkwardness of either option on both theological and scientific grounds makes me wary of their school of thought, no matter how much I like how it has shaken men from their slumbers.
I agree. At least this debate has served to point out the fact that we know very little regarding human origins with any degree of certainty, beyond that which has been defined by the Church.