I’m wondering how many of the Miami Herald‘s editors have scientific degrees. Whatever, they’re sure they know the facts on evolution and Intelligent Design. They say
Intelligent design, a belief about the beginning of life on Earth, is based on religious teachings that can be taught in a course about religion. Evolution, which intelligent-design supporters refute, is a well-tested scientific theory. It is based on empirical evidence that can be tested, measured or observed. Intelligent design which relies on faith [sic].
First, Intelligent Design is not “based on” religious teachings, although clearly the MH has bought that idea from ID’s naysayers. Second, I’m not sure we should trust newspaper editors who make sentences out of fragments. “Intelligent Design which relies on faith”…what? Third, ID is far broader than is usually recognized. It is not some monolith criticizing evolutionary theory. However, the one thing that the proponents of ID do have in common is that evolution cannot explain how certain things/organisms came to be. Not only can it not explain them now (i.e., some sort of God-of-the-gaps), it is absolutely inadequate to explain them ever.
I realize “theistic evolutionists” have bowed all the way to the ground in the areas where scientists claim authority, but evolution is an essentially materialistic system. It has no need of any god, and those who attempt to find some place to fit a god in are (rightly) ridiculed by the materialists. But if it makes you feel better to have a god running your inherently a-theistic system, go right ahead. I prefer a less deistic God; one who is intimately involved with His creation, rather than putting all the pieces there and watching them unfold as He “intended.”