https://___ www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg3yAJ8vOfQ: Debate: Should Catholics be “Intelligent Design” Theorists?
We have addressed this many times here, and the strange thing is that the question should be, Should scientists be (intelligent) “Design” Theorists? The adjective ‘intelligent’ scrambles the case for design, because it forces the issue of the designer being ‘intelligent’. But we can’t then apply that term to ‘nature’ as alive.
A simpler and clearer approach is to simply discuss ‘design’. We can then speak of ‘design’ that _mimics_ ‘intelligence’, perhaps. But the point is more or less clear: design is hard to avoid in the biological sphere, and the main issue is, why on earth do darwinists persist in claiming natural selection can generate all biological designs? It is strange dumb strategy that has fueled a near industry of ID critics.
I don’t see why scientists are so afraid of design arguments. Granting the reality of design is not a concession to theology. It is the confrontation with a very difficult question that science has a hard time answering. That is the appearance of teleology in the construction of biological entities. It is hard to see how biologists got committed to the natural selection fallacy here. It is a fantasy of science that has sent religious critics into a gleeful sense of one up on scientists.
The presence of designed entities on every page of biological textbooks is a reality biologists have to face without contortions over their side project of ‘secular’ anti-religion, the mirror image of the religious agendas of the proponents of design.
But the issue of design is two-edged. If we grant design, we will probably have to deny design in the Old Testament: Jehovah doesn’t work as the designer of biblical proportions. So what are scientists so worried about? And how did they get into the rut of making fools of themselves negating design.