Wayfaring Stranger's take on intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is very attractive to people like me. Basically, it allows Christians to reconcile science and our belief in God. ID does not insist on the identity of God, but rather on the evidence of His existence in creation--much like the argument Paul uses in Romans chapter 1:19-20:

"... since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

IDers point out the infinitesimal chances of life evolving on its own. A Christian friend of mine who is metallurgistst at Boeing says even the sky's blue color is evidence of a God who loves us, because our particular blend of atmosphere scatters blue light well. If not for those special molecules, daylight would be like on the moon. The earth's orbital position, the moon's effect of earth, our ozone, and even nuclear forces all seem to indicate a fine-tuned universe created by an intelligent designer.

So what's the problem with ID? Well, the pertinent problem for Christians is that ID scientists generally accept the universe is billions of years old and that life on earth evolved, albeit with the help of a designer. This causes all sorts of problems for Christians who hold to a non-allegorical account of Genesis. Even if you believe the six "days" were actually epochs, you still have to grapple with the curse God put upon the earth in Genesis 3 and that there was no sin and death before that time. Trying to explain it all gets pretty hairy.

Besides the Bible problem, ID seems like a bandwagon a lot of people are jumping on simply because it's easy. I understand the temptation: We don't believe life is an accident but we don't want to seem dogmatic. ID is even interfaith--it doesn't matter who the Designer is.

I read a recent Slate article which, despite it's snide vitriol, carried some truth:

Fundamentalists have lost the media, the colleges, and the science academies. The battleground has been reduced to public schools, and creationism has been reduced to intelligent design--a pathetic, agnostic, empty shell. Creationists can't teach a dogma, so they "teach the controversy." They accept more and more of Darwin's theory, narrowing the dispute to isolated systems--the eye, the flagellum, the blood-clotting system--that they say Darwinism can't explain. They just want science to stop short of denying God's possibility. A little bit of mystery, a parcel of unspoiled divine wilderness, is all they ask.