Every so often I see a new essay put up at BioLogos, where the thesis is to shame ID proponents for using ID to try to prove that God exists. “How dare they! Don’t they know it’s just a god-of-the-gaps argument? And that gaps could disappear? And if faith is built on something so flimsy, it will come crashing down?!?”
Yeah, yeah, I get it. But the foundation of ID doesn’t rest on the desire to construct arguments for God’s existence. The foundation of ID rests on an intuition of design. “Hey! That looks like somebody designed it!” Now if we investigate the thing that triggers the design intuition, we might decide that it wasn’t really designed after all. Or we might decide that we don’t know…yet. Anti-ID people think that this last statement combined with a desire to prove God’s existence is what fuels ID. But I don’t think that it is always the story.
What I think is often the real story is that it is the combination of both the “we don’t know…yet” with the “Hey! That looks like it was designed” that fuels ID. In other words, who cares whether or not this is a good argument for God’s existence? It just looks like design is a reasonable explanation.
Now I can understand people deciding that it is more reasonable to reject a design explanation and to keep looking for a non-design explanation. What I can’t understand is why they deny that the design explanation at least looks reasonable.
And what I find particularly annoying is the constant accusation that the only reason people favor the design explanation is that they want to base their religious apologetics upon it. Give it a break already, will ya’?