"They left the most intelligent choice off the list.
God created the Universe, and everything in it, and then stood back and let evolution happen over time."
Actually, that still fits under the umbrella of Intelligent Design theory. Most ID subscribers believe he did it basically as you describe, but stepped in to "tweak" things now and then... but your idea still fits into the general concept. ID is a pretty broad concept.
#####Actually, that still fits under the umbrella of Intelligent Design theory. Most ID subscribers believe he did it basically as you describe, but stepped in to "tweak" things now and then... but your idea still fits into the general concept. ID is a pretty broad concept.#####
I think you're right. We're often told by evolutionists that there's such a thing as Theistic Evolution. But if God had anything to do with evolution, then evolution is ID. If He didn't have anything to do with evolution, then it can never be theistic.
Catholics repudiate the "tweaking." And so do several Protestant sects, I believe the Lutherans, for one.
It's a fundamental difference in point of view. Catholics believe God doesn't need to "tweak." He set it all in motion billions of years ago.
You are correct that a 'hands off' God (as well as an apathetic God that completely ignores us, or a clueless God that doesn't even realize we exist) Qualifies as ID. The problem is that there is no scientific evidence of any 'tweaks', let alone of an intelligence behind the original creation of the universe. Further, there is no practical scientific value in choosing to believe that goddidit whenever we face an unanswered question.
So, while I personally lean towards a Deist perspective philosophically and thus technically acknowledge the possibility of an Intelligent Designer on that level, for all scientific purposes that belief is irrelevant. The evidence speaks for itself, and it says that evolution is the design and natural selection coupled with genetic drift is the designer. Pretending that ID is a valid alternative way to view the evidence about how life developed just to support a philosophical belief is a dishonest waste of time.