I have followed with interest the discussion (“Is James Shapiro a Design Theorist?”) initiated by Bill Dembski and now involving James Shapiro, Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe. The nub of the issue seems to relate to conflicting conceptions about what constitutes a legitimate scientific explanation (what philosophers call the “demarcation problem”).
I find it amusing that every reliable discovery of science…the structure and function of living things, the origin of the cosmos, microevolution/natural selection….far from eliminating God, points to Him. Even more amusing are the fantastic theories (string theory, multiverse theory, macroevolutionary theory) needed to avoid the necessity of Intelligence/Information/God. Christianity has nothing to fear from honest scientific inquiry. There is no God of the Gaps, He is the God of it all. When we gain a basic understanding of some complex aspect of the reality we occupy, it is an understanding of how God did it. Science can give us knowledge. Only God can enable the wise use and application of it. The scientific theories needed to avoid the necessity for God are far more improbable (formally and philosophically!), than belief in God. It seems to me that the primary reason for the rejection of I.D. theory originates in athiesm. Sadly, both Darwinism (microevolution, natural selection) and I.D. seem to provide wonderful insights as to the development of life on earth. I.D. proponents have accepted the reasonable information presented by Darwin and reject only those things that are not scientifically defensible. Proponents of macrevolution reject I.D. because they cannot accept the possibility of God, and thus they refuse to entertain the very plausible assertions therein. I would hope that I.D. theorists would not flee from or fear any theory that seemed to point away from God. Good grief. Let the scientific method speak for itself. Let it say what it can and eschew what it cannot. Scientific theories regarding evolution and cosmic beginnings are becoming so numerous, colorful and biased that they seem to me to pose a serious, even fatal obstacle to the acquisition of real Truth. When it comes to theories, I think David Hume was on to something.
“I cannot forgive Descartes. In his whole philosophy he would like to do without God. But he cannot help allowing Him with a flick of the fingers to set the world in motion. After that he has no more use of God.” -and- “Write against those, such as Descartes, who probe science to deeply.” (Blaise Pascal)