A good comment on the ‘new atheism’ question. I was not promoting ‘theism’ in response to ‘atheism’: I am none of the above, if only because too much theistic belief is incoherent. It is not really ‘atheism’ to challenge theistic gibberish.
If we examine the eonic effect we see directly that a ‘higher power’ is operating over world history, as the Israelites sensed. That perception has been turned into a theistic mess, missing the original point. \\
Is the eonic model a design argument then? The eonic model takes no position on the subject and is almost ruthless in using systems analysis to describe its data, which is often so supercomplex no ‘mechanical’ explanation is going to work.
Dembski’s book on the ‘design’ inference doesn’t really help here. The design inference ID people make about the OT is false: the accounts of divinity in the Bible are so mythologized as to be false. They are later texts by those who have started to fix the legacy. Sadly, the ‘real’ design inference suggests something remarkable, but we can’t name any entity to foot the bill. So the ‘system’s analysis’ version stands, under some strain due to the spectacular complexity of the eonic effect.