It amuses me greatly that knee-jerk opponents of belief in any type of intelligent design are engaging in . . . intelligent design. If they succeed, THEN will they believe in intelligent design? Or is belief in intelligent design a prerequisite for carrying it out? Deep questions to ponder . . .
I’m no Biblical creationist by a long shot, but mainstream science’s bull-headed opposition to the idea of any sort of intelligent design having possibly had any influence whatsoever on the development of life on earth, is every bit as irrational as the most clueless and bull-headed creationists. But at least the Biblical creationists admit they’re relying on faith to arrive at their beliefs.
Interesting question comes to mind: What do they consider intelligent?
Today we have computers with a pre-programmed “if-then” function. When we “invent” technology that learns from past “if-then” scenarios, it could be regarded as “intelligent.” Dogs and pets can be trained but are not considered intelligent by human standards.
What then are we trying to create when we create “intelligence” scientifically? Intelligence that develops into self preservation and begins to have morals, values, etc. gets dangerous. I believe this is where your post is going.
I would take it one further and suggest that technology that can learn and decide is also more able to make mistakes. A well trained dog will sometimes still bite its owner given certain circumstances.
Good thoughts....
God is so far beyond comprehension and intelligence that He doesn't need intent or design. This is Gnostic stuff and even pre-Christian.
That said, they (the bull-headed naturalists) are also fascinated by the admittedly fascinating challenge of coming up with a solution that explains life from exclusively natural causes. It's largely the intellectual challenge, and beyond that, to what is probably a vocal but powerful minority, a more sinister attempt to justify human evil by yanking out the rug of any ultimate meaning.