So, in other words, what you like about ID are facters that are not unique to it, but shared by numerous other theological and scientific approaches.  That’s a very extrinsic way of liking it.  It’s like my saying I like the Dallas Maverics because they’re not the Lakers.  True.  But I don’t really like basketball at all.

I have to agree with all of your positive assessments of ID. I was a radical atheistic fundamentalist (neo-Atheist, is that the term now?) as well as a molecular cell biologist. I once viewed science and spirituality as mutually exclusive. This was a stumbling block to my coming to Christ for a long time. Because the literalists are so very vocal I thought I had to reject reason and science to be a Christian. When I did convert I found I was wrong and most Christians are not of the neo-fundamentalist type.  However, I ignored creation for a long time. I could not abandon what I know to be an accurate description of the material world for mythology (or the party line). But then As I came to realize that God IS the Creator, created and continues to create, there is nothing in that fact that negates what science has learned. Likewise, there is nothing in my reading of Genesis that negates what science has learned. A big help, for me, in this was Michael Lodahl’s book, “The Story of God”.

I look forward to the next installment of this series.

Blessed are the peacemakers…

I appreciate how how you are approaching the topic. 

And I’m guessing that the theological concept you will speak of is….love?

Good points.  Amen to them all.  I eagerly await the next post (with bated breath).  I’m hope you deal with your theory of knowledge and what consititues valid inference. Also, I hope that you don’t engage in any dimissal of ID for the perceived motives of its advocates.  That wouldn’t be relevant.  I can have base motives and still be technically correct.  (Whether for false motives or true, Christ is preached.) All truth is God’s truth even if the devil says it.

I am curious on what to expect with the five “don’t like’s”. I also agree with your “likes”. I always feel drawn to the tension in keeping science and creation and it’s Source in tune. Still I’m not really so worried about it all. Even if I don’t understand it all. It’s okay, for there is the Love and Hope that keep me going, not the need to know it all.

Well, can’t say I noticed much here other than basic affirmations…  I assume you will get to it in the next two…

I am glad that you made reference to this article on Facebook, or I might have missed it. I have spent most of my time in this discussion sandwiched between fundamentalists, both atheistic and christian. After reading your post and thoughful responses I am refreshed by the dialogue.
Three things in particular:

“I hope that you don’t engage in any dimissal of ID for the perceived motives of its advocates.” -Christopher Wiley

“...literalists are so very vocal I thought I had to reject reason and science to be a Christian.” -Paul DeBauf

“I seek to unite scientific knowledge and vital Christian piety.” -Thomas Oord

I feel like I am sitting in on a recovery group for christian thinkers.

It is nice to have a safe place to talk!

I love what you say about the combination of science and theology. Being a science major and learning more about such amazing discoveries, such as DNA, this seems to me to say how can this structure alone, not include science and theology. This structure was eventually discovered through science, but it seems that only some intelligence could possibly be behind this.

Thanks for all of these helpful responses!

You used the example from the Bible that states the mustard seed as the smallest seed, and you said that was incorrect. You are using this example to show that literal interpretation of the Bible can be disproved by scientific findings. I know that it is proven that there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed; but I struggle with applying this concept of science discrediting the scriptures to other parts of the Bible. Science could prove a lot of things that I couldn’t accept true because of my faith. For instance, if science “proves” man came from ape, how can I throw out the literal story of God creating Adam?

Even though I must admit I am not a fan of ID, I really liked this first installment regarding ID because is revealed to me areas of common ground between my perspective and that of ID.  However, I would suggest to the author (regarding his fifth point) to be more rigorous in his use of language regarding chance, randomness, and purpose.  There is an excellent book written by a mathematician and statistician entitle God, Chance and Purpose.  The author is David Bartholomew.  It changed my mind about the concept of “chance” and convinced me that science’s emphasis on chance in such areas as Quantum Theory is not at odds with God’s purposeful action.  I hope that after you read this book that you will not use the term “pure chance” any longer.

I, too, like intelligent design, though on slightly different grounds.  I am neither an atheist, nor do I believe in a personal god or in classical deism.  I feel that ID (broadly defined) does, however, face up to serious problems in the neo-darwinian model (such as the presence of seeming order and the contrasting presumption of chaotic determinism yielding biological order).  I think, however, that the arguments for ID are vague to the point that there is no one theory that we flatly call ID.  Stuart Kauffman and his philosophical ilk attribute life to a self-ordering process in the universe, where someone like Tim Anstine accepts ID from a (tacit) cartesian ontology, where God orders from the outside.  Kauffman appeals to me a little more, since the other model mentioned seems less epistemically amenable with the fields that I study.