Dr. Swamidass's Characterization of ID

I think you are reading a bit too much in to what I mean there, and have missed a key distinction I make. I see a very big difference between divine design and creaturely design. Sometimes we can detect creaturely design in science, but divine design ends up outside science’s ability to engage.

I understand that ID tries to collapse these two types of design (divine and creaturely) into a single category, but I do not know how to make sense of that. In fact, it appears most ID people can’t make sense of it either, because they usually freely acknowledge that it is God who is the Intelligent Designer. Just about everyone is thinking “Intelligent Designer = God” even though the formal possibility of something other than God (what?) is left open ended. That is why, for example, the Crossway TE book made such big hay about detecting God’s action, and pointed to ID as a way of detecting God’s action, apparently with the approval of ID leaders.

That complexity aside, I do not think science speaks of God. Silence, however, is neither disproving nor denying that God exists. This is a key point for those drawn to ID, even if ID itself does not (usually) acknowledge God either.

Also, as you likely noticed, I’ve asked ID leaders on this forum to help us out: Requesting Help from ID Leaders.

1 Like