Speaking of Intelligent Design ... in the last October meeting of the SCOBA Social Issues Commission, there was some mention of evolution -- as in, "shouldn't we say something about this?" One of the members scuttled the notion with this thought: "Intelligent Design suggests that there can be scientific proof of the existence of God, and, you know, there are theological problems with that."
Actually, there were no theological problems with that possibility until the modern age. It was quite expected that natural philosophy should notice proofs popping up all over the place. St. Paul seemed to think so in the first chapter of his epistle to the Romans.
But then again, he didn't have the good luck of being a scientist. Neither did those pre-modern philosophers, who were so very weighed down with metaphysics.
Moreover, I'm not sure if Intelligent Design really contends an argument for God's existence.
It is surprising to find such antipathy for something so benign as ID in the ranks of national commissions of a rather conservative ecclesiological body. Intelligent Design is, philosophically, only up to the level of warmed over deism. It is nothing for a thorough-going theistic natural philosopher to get excited about. The real excitement is at those odd congruences of Palamite theology with the one-way "arrow" of molecular biology ... with the "existence" of transcendental numbers ... and with the general wierdness of quantum mechanics.
Those congruences are the things that the Darwinian fundamentalists should worry about. Those congruences are the phenomena that high school and second-rate college science teachers should have the courage to investigate, rather than continuing to dish out the religio-scientistic pronouncements of the University Soviet.
But that is to be expected. What I don't understand is why religious people -- those in leadership positions -- should be so quick as to adopt a position opposed to Tradition. Do they think that there are any Fathers who would countenance their views? Do they assume, because of their "education" under the strictures of scientism, that they are doing their constituency any favors? Why do they find it so urgent to opt for a position that opposes not only Tradition, but the general opinion of the laity?