[[I thought that ID was a middle point moving folks away from the dogma of the philosophy of a godless naturalistic evolution, not a stopping point. Once folks realize that the evidence points to an ID, then the identity of the ID can be sought.]]
ID science isn’t about identifying the Designer, only in providing enough evidence to show a NEED ror a Designer, and to hsow that nature is incapable of being that intelligent designer. Those with an open enough mind to admit that nature couldn’t possibly have provided the incredible IC witnessed and evidenced in nature should by all rights seek out hte ID o ntheir own beyond the science of ID, but ID science itself isn’t obligated to ‘prove who or what the designer is’ behind hte IC, only that an intelligent designer is NEEDED- which is exactly what we find in the IC structures al laround us- just as any forensic scientist is obliged to do- prove that an act couldn’t have possibly happened naturally, and that it NEEDED an intelligent designer behind the act- When enough IC is presented, the case for the NEED for an intelligent designer is made- and natural causes are ruled out because nature couldn’t possibly have doen hte acts- they are beyond the capabilities of nature, and infact violate several key scientific principles which can’t be ignored and swept under the rug as though non essential to the argument
Uh, then why do they call him the Intelligent Designer (notice the caps) and not call him God? Why do they say that the Intelligent Designer most probably is dead? Sounds like they are setting the stage for the removal of God from the scene.
No argument, here.