
© Wikimedia Commons
In
an earlier post, I discussed the diversity of thought within the intelligent design movement with respect to "who" (or what) the designer is. Many,
but certainly not all, intelligent design advocates take a theistic position. This view is of course roundly rejected by Darwinian naturalists who believe that natural selection, which consists of blind, undirected processes working on random mutations, is a fully capable substitute for an intelligent designer. Much of their disgust is directed at the suggestion of something that is supernatural,
beyond nature, having any role in the evolution either of the universe or of the biological world.
To some this may sound radical, but I think a question that needs to be asked is
if the theistic view necessitates that God act in a supernatural sense. As someone who personally accepts the biblical view,
I see no reason that must be the case. In fact, I believe the debate of natural versus supernatural, or theist versus atheist, reflects a lack of imagination.
The principle embraced by most naturalists (or more specifically, physicalists) is
that the universe is causally closed. Thus, for example, those who take a substance dualist view of the mind and the body could not possibly reconcile an "immaterial" mind with a material body, since immaterial objects (presuming they even exist) are considered causally impotent.
Comment: See also: