[fizziwig]

Well I guess I just don't understand then...Miller and Krauthammer say that evolution can be blended easily with the concept of God...maybe, but not the Judeo Christian God, only a God who created nature and then set it on its way to no particulary end or direction except what may happen be chance.

Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

So, what is it boys...Judeo Christian God...or something else...or pantheism maybe...or what?

Miller mentions Christian message...Christianity is not a message...it is a statement of certain immutable facts about the univers and Man in particular...you can take it as fact and truth and be a Christian, or you can dilute it into Christianity and water which basically has Christ as a philospher and not God become Man....which is my hunch as to what Miller believes.

[GSlob]

Since God is supposed to move in mysterious ways, the particular ends and directions might well be inscrutable, and thus beyond discussion in religious terms. Tertullian used to put it as "credo quia absurdum", right?

[Stultis]

Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

Only if God is directing by interventionist means. Remember that ID only flags features which (allegedly) couldn't have been constructed by "natural" means. However most theists believe that God is fully immanent in the world -- that He is the God of ALL of nature, not just the little "designed" looking bits -- and that there is not a single "natural" process that is apart from His governance of nature.

On this view God is not limited to breaking the laws nature in order to govern it. He can direct nature without doing so. Indeed there may be, in the end, no proper distinction between "God's purposes" and the evolution of nature according to it's "natural" course.

In any case the circling back to ID is only implied, or at least only compelled, if you have an essentially "deistic" view of God: that when He doesn't "appear" to be present (is not blatantly intervening in nature) then He is actually absent. If you believe, OTOH, that God's mastery of nature extends to every photon that flys from the sun, or every leaf that separates from a branch, then -- although there might be other/addition reasons for it -- providential theism doesn't inherently require anything ID.

[goldstategop]

Darwin never asserted his theory sought to explain ultimate origins. It only sought to explain the empirically risible processes behind the variety and extent of adaptation of living things to their environment on earth. It leaves open the question of whether all things came into being through an Ultimate Cause. You can deny that one exists like a number of scientists do. Then again you'd be as dogmatic and dishonest as the creationists are. There's plenty of room for ground where both science and religion can meet in harmony.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Oztrich Boy]

Now, if Miller and Krauthammer say that God is directing evolution to a particular end...then we are back full circle to ID...

A less than omnipotent and not quite comniscient God would have to resort to the ID tinkering