I lunched with a colleague of mine today (we have a standing lunch arrangement). I think I’ll call this colleague Dr. R. We share quite a few interests (photography, vinyl, etc.), and while critical of ID science (he’s been exposed to all the usual anti-ID sentiments) he is open enough to really engage on the issues without the usual arrogance and offhand dismissal. Generally, our chats are a lot of fun and the back and forth is usually quite entertaining. There should be more of that. He’s been reading a lot on the issue, and I would like to believe is secretly conflicted (although he laughs at the suggestion). But then why so much energy directed at ID science?
He has been reading Howard Van Till, while I prefer Plantiga’s theology. Plantiga understands evolution’s deep religious connections.
My colleague is right about one thing, though: the biggest challenge, and one that ID has yet to meet, is to build a theoretical framework that will enable us to move into the lab and out in to the field, and into the business of making testable predictions and then testing them. I feel confident that this can be done, and is being done, although covertly. If the biological world was structured by an intelligence, then that should be detectable, simple as that.