Another op-ed properly defending design theory
We're starting to see occasional occurences of coherent defenses of design theory popping up on editorial pages of all sorts of newspapers. For instance, Bruce Mclarty has an op-ed piece in The Daily Citizen (Arkansas) that nicely explains the differences between intelligent design and creationism, and correctly points out that creationism is a subset of intelligent design, not the other way around.
"While all creationists would believe in intelligent design, the opposite is not true. One could adhere to the idea that nature reflects an intelligent designer without believing in the Bible, the God of the Bible, or the Genesis account of creation."Mclarty also notes that:
"When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is attributed to being the result of a process we don't understand, but which can certainly not include the activity of an intelligent designer. In other words, accident always trumps design in the game of philosophical materialism."