I agree with your general assessment, Granny (
Message 5). My experience is that theistic evolutionists such as Ken Miller see god's handiwork in extremely subtle ways. Miller, for example, places god in the realm of quantum mechanics. Since QM is an exercise in probability, he has god's actions happening on probabilistic levels, tipping the scales in certain directions rather than dramatic, Spielbergian zap-poofing.
ID, on the other hand, has a much more dramatic claim about what god does. Unlike TE which says that god makes certain outcomes likely (priming the pump, so to speak), ID says that god comes in and forces things.
Take the flagellum. TE would say that god made it possible for the chemical reactions to happen and guided selection pressures that would naturally result in the evolution of a flagellum. ID would say that god had to step in a personally create a flagellum ex nihilo. Not an earth shaking result, but something that couldn't happen at all without god coming in and making it happen.
In essence, TE has god as a naturalist. ID has god as an engineer.
Now, I do see that there is some connection between the two. F'rinstnace, the Catholic church has no problem with evolution so long as it doesn't speak to the intellect. That is, they have no issues with humans evolving from other species. Where the draw the line is with humans getting smart through natural methods: That they reserve to a direct act of god. Does that make the Catholic position TE or ID? Well, it certainly isn't on the level of, say, Michael Behe, but it still requires some "acts of god."
Ken Miller, by the way, is Catholic.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
