It's interesting how such arguments are used to support both the evolution side and the creation/design side, philosophically speaking. The former argue that such "jury-rigged" apparatus such as the human eye (with the awkwardness of the retinal nerve having to pass through the retina, thus leaving a blind spot) are evidence for the lack of a "designer", while the latter argue that it shows God's whimsy, or quirkyness, which provide evidence of His personality.

What if both are true? God set up Nature such that evolution would proceed - that is, He "designed" whimsy and quirkyness into His creation. But that doesn't mean that He supernaturally inserted various biological systems at various points in history, which is what the IDers claim.

As far as the science is concerned (and I have expert knowledge in this area), there is zero evidence for the ID claims to date.

Mike,

I don't disagree with you. I'm merely saying that, if we find proof that God "stuck his finger in," as Derb phrases it, then that proof wouldn't be evidence of a flaw that He had to fix, but an indication of something else He wants to accomplish (e.g., giving us clues as to his personality).

So, yeah, both can be true. In a manner of speaking, my explanation is that both would be true. I'm not going to put effort into constructing an example, but I imagine it's generally even more difficult to design whimsy into a functional system.

I guess my impression of Intelligent Design was more a misunderstanding of what the core I.D. belief was. Up until now, I had thought that I.D. held the view that God set the universe into motion with the planned chain of events that would bring about evolution until fruition of his creation of ourselves and that divine intervention occurred only when God desired to interact with us.

How far out of the mainstream am I with that view point?

Justin,

I don't disagree with you. I'm merely saying that, if we find proof that God "stuck his finger in," as Derb phrases it, then that proof wouldn't be evidence of a flaw that He had to fix, but an indication of something else He wants to accomplish (e.g., giving us clues as to his personality).

This is true in an abstract sense, and in accordance with the miracles in the Bible. But it is not in accordance with the claims that the ID camp makes. The miracle of raising Lazarus has a clear message. It was also clear who was sending the message. What would be the message of the "miracle" of the bacterial flagellum (propeller), assuming it did not come about via natural mechanisms, as the ID camp claims? And who is sending that message (something that IDers are evasive about)?

---
smmtheory,

How far out of the mainstream am I with that view point?

I'm not sure how to define the mainstream on this issue. There are far more people who believe in young-earth creationism(YEC) than in ID. The ID movement is intentionally vague about many things, because it is trying to keep very disparate factions under the same tent. They want support from YEC, but they also want support from various other kinds of theists and even non-theists in their efforts to challenge evolution.

What the ID camp (i.e. the Discovery Institute) says about claims such as (usually described as "theistic evolution") is that you have been corrupted by the Darwinian dogma, and are foolishly thinking that you can integrate evolution with the Bible. If you express reservations about evolution, then they will claim you as their own. But no amount of agreement on other issues will afford you acceptance if you don't question evolutionary theory. Even Michael Behe basically accepts most aspects of evolution - he merely posits that by itself, evolution can't produce all the natural artifacts we see, but he supports common descent - but is frequently promoted by the ID camp as a champion of the cause. Yet his views are anathma to YECers like Duane Gish or Henry Morris.

While there are a fair number of people who hold the same views as you do (counting me), I'd say numerically we're fairly small in number. But it's hard to say accurately, since most people don't really think about it in any detail.

The basic problem with the ID movement is that it is trying to be all things to all people: it wants to be taken seriously as a scientific program, but it claims the whole scientific community is tainted by metaphysical naturalism, and it doesn't proceed in a normal scientific manner; its goals are explicitly evangelical, and it relies on Christians for it's support, but it claims that its ideas are neutral with respect to religion; it loves to criticize minute details of evolutionary theory, but offers precious little in the way of details itself; it makes definitive claims about the falsity of evolution, but turns around and says there is not enough evidence to determine what the age of the earth is; it argues on the one hand that the laws of nature are precisely fine-tuned to bring about life, but also claims that life could not have arisen via solely natural processes; etc., etc., etc.

ID is doing more harm to the evangelical movement than it is to Darwinism, I think.

Mike S.,
Since most do not think about the fit of evolution theory with creation theory, and indeed I'm sure some do not even want to contemplate it at all (such as my spouse saying "whatever you say dear..."), I say we claim those for our camp. With those numbers, maybe we can compete. Is it worth the effort to try to promote the concept? Or would the two opposing communities )who unfortunately tend to view science and religion as mutually exclusive) do their best to squash it?