As opposed to "Random did it 16 billion years ago."
Isn't the real dilemma between causal and acausal?
One thing, though, that I don't understand about ID, is why the evolutionary process itself can't be evidence for it... or for that matter, why math, physics, and chemistry aren't ID evidence.
Why concede all of that nice, systematic, orderly ground, plus much of biology, and then make a stand on evolution?
Good point!
Why indeed? By the time you've given up on Young Earth and hyper-literal Genesis, evolution should be no big deal. The emotions won't die. Just as the liberals never stopped going after Nixon, the neo-creos are defined by "anything but evolution."
There's probably more than one reason. Some haven't really given up on literal Genesis. The rush to embrace ID has a large component of stealth creationism, the wedge strategy, that sort of thing. ID writers are getting rich off of the Bible belt types they claim to stand apart from. And there are still people who don't want to be descended from apes/monkeys/protozoans. Any knowledge they don't want is bad science.
"Far from being a scientific theory of recent origin, evolution was an established religious belief at the heart of occultism and mysticism thousands of years before the Greeks gave in "scientific" status. And the central core of the ancient mystical theory of evolution is the lie of the serpent to Eve in the Garden, the belief that we are evolving ever upward to godhood... [Additionally], Evolution, as the core belief of Hinduism and witchcraft, is at least as old as the theories of reincarnation and karma, in which it is a key element."