Replies

Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position.

I call B.S. The essential I.D. position is that living things exhibit multiple features inexplicable by "natural cause" (more specifically by stepwise development from an earlier state, with each step presumptively attributable to natural cause). Therefore any person answering this question who believes God used, or normally uses, natural causes in the creation of biological diversity, certainly must reject the essential I.D. position.

Really this is just an arrogant (and pathetically transparent) gambit to say, "anyone who is a theist ipso facto accepts I.D."

It's almost funny though. A major weakness of I.D., even in it's "hardest" or "strictest" form, is that it's uselessly vague and noncommittal. For instance we are told we must "infer" that certain features are "intelligently designed" because they are (supposedly) impossible to form by natural causes, but all else is a mystery, and intentionally kept so. We are not told, nor will I.D. advocates deign even to speculate, as to how, when, where, etc, "design" is actually instantiated. Likewise I.D.ers propose criteria like "specified complexity" that can (supposedly) identify I.D., but then won't apply them to actual cases in nature.

So I.D. is already compatible, for instance, with any scenario of earth history from one basically indistinguishable from the standard scientific version (where "I.D." would presumably be instantiated subtly and piecemeal over large spans of time) and strict young earth creationism, or even "Last Thursdayism". Now this author proposes to make I.D. even more vague by "essentially" equating it with any version of theism whatever!