Theological question for Intelligent Design proponents

[John21]

From my understanding of ID, it states that life is too complicated to have arisen solely by chance or randomness, and then goes on to infer an intelligent designer. The proponents of the idea seem to all be Christians, yet they state they are not making any claims about 'who' this designer is - it could be God or it could be an alien race for all they know, but they're proposing neutrality on the issue.

Now how could a person who claims to be a Christian and believes in the Bible adopt a theory that flies directly in the face of the fundamental point in the Bible - that God created man?

If an alien did it, that means God didn't. Or if intelligence did it, that means any being with the required intelligence could have created man. Either way, it seems they're advocating a view that for all practical purposes are blasphemous at best and a mortal sin at worse, i.e. someone or something other than God could have created man.

As a believer I'm wondering what the true motives are behind ID. They seem to be proposing a theory that undermines the very core of Christian theology.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Either way, it seems they're advocating a view that for all practical purposes are blasphemous at best


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an ID'er in the sense that I think it's a valid scientific theory, so I'm just guessing - what I would say if I did support ID. I would state that though I'm a Christian and believe God is the Creator, ID stands alone as a valid theory, and hypothetically for instance an alien could have done it.

I'm also wondering if your generalization is valid, i.e., that most IDers are Christians who belive in the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis, and whether those who are really state that, e.g., an alien could have done it.

[ QUOTE ]

As a believer I'm wondering what the true motives are behind ID.


[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose motive has some place in the discussion because of the nature of the issue - we can't prove ID or atheistic evolution one way or the other. But I really think it's just barely relevant, to either side, and should mostly be ignored. Otherwise, using the same approach, we could dismiss evolution because of the obvious bias of cranks like Dawkins.