Regarding your appraisal that people here generally don’t go in for ID (the stronger sort) – I see that too, and agree. Eddie has been kept busy for years here I think trying (perhaps with little success to hear him tell it) to temper what he sees as anti-ID enthusiasms. And to continue my candor with you here, I’m not a strong ID proponent myself, though nor do I run screaming from the room when others show up who want to pursue or defend it. So I wouldn’t describe myself as being hostile to those who find inspiration and hope in that pursuit. Certainly, thank you for your persistent presence as somebody whose testimony includes that program and who does face harsh criticism here. I hope not to pile that on (at least not harshly) --so in that spirit, since you asked how I account for anti-ID sentiments here, I should at least explain what prevents me from having much enthusiasm for it. And that will warrant more attention than I have time to give this morning as I’m getting ready for school, so I may put this off for later (I’m not getting back till late tonight and so may not have a chance to reply more today). So here is just a brief and insufficient summary of where I am: I don’t reject it automatically as so many others here do, but nor does it seem to me that its proponents have managed bring forth compelling responses in debates so much as their opponents have.
And since I don’t place my faith in scientific arguments generally (as people attempt to apply them to theology) I don’t have as much motivation perhaps as some (like yourselves) may rightly have to hotly pursue such things. I am personally not knowledgeable enough to evaluate pro and con genetic arguments, so I listen from the sidelines as those from both sides (both more intelligent in the life-sciences than I am) debate with each other.
So in my case it is a matter of choosing which authorities I trust and all the ideological perils that is fraught with. But I think I know just enough science (and life science) to recognize who is giving more sustained informed answers / rebuttals. In my limited experience with this it seems to me that pro-ID folks have as yet failed to make the more compelling case. So to repeat an oft-given criticism toward ID, I still lean toward thinking it suffers from the classic God-Of-The-Gaps weakness. I know this leaves out many nuances and is unfair to pretend that the whole effort could be dismissed with that one phrase. Don’t get me wrong – I believe there are almost certainly permanent gaps in human knowledge. I just don’t want to stake my faith on the nature/size of such gaps. I could be wrong in this of course. But I’m not going to die on any of those particular hills (on either side).
In the end I rejoice that you and I are brothers in Christ, and that (figuratively speaking), the hill at Golgotha is the one we have both pitched our tents on.