4. Maybe the coffin is still empty because no one actually bought it?

While we are here anyway, Karl Giberson also wrote, at the Huffington Post, "Intelligent Design's Coffin Is Still Empty". That would not surprise a lot of people; if it were not for court orders and tax funding, it is Giberson's Darwinism's coffin that would not be empty. But here is what he actually says:

ID's coffin is far from being nailed shut. Several things are propping it open:

1) The complex designs of many natural structures that have not yet been explained by science. As long as there are ingenious devices and intricate phenomena in nature (origin of life, anyone?) that we cannot understand, there will be ID arguments.

2) The remarkable, finely-tuned structure of the cosmos in which the laws of physics collaborate to make life possible. Many agnostics have had their faith in unguided materialism shaken by this, most recently Anthony Flew.

3) The widespread belief that God -- an intelligent agent -- created the universe. The claim that an intelligent God created an unintelligent universe seems peculiar, to say the least.

4) The enthusiastic insistence by the New Atheists that evolution is incompatible with belief in God. Most people think more highly of their religion than their science. Imagine trying to get 100 million Americans to dress up for a science lecture every Sunday morning -- and then voluntarily pay for the privilege.

ID's coffin will remain open -- and empty -- as least as long as these props remain. Science is working successfully only on the first prop above and is a long way from having explained all the mysteries of nature. The argument that because science has explained many things, it can explain all things, is not entirely compelling in a world as wonderful as this one. Many people think that sounds like blind faith. And long lists of bad designs in nature are not really more effective than short lists, especially when they seem attached to an anti-religious agenda.

Not what he would apparently like, of course.

Some responses: So, in other words, the answer can never be design. So the late Antony Flew, the best known 20th century academic atheist must be an idiot if he changed his mind? Anyway, who experiences the universe as unintelligent? I never found it so. Giberson's whole schick is patronizing beyond the level of disgust, and one can only pity any theist taken in by it. Most of the Americans who go to church/synagogue/mosque/gurdwara, etc., are as fully capable as Giberson is of making reasonable decisions about their lives, much as he obviously doubts it, from his tone and manner.

And so what follows from his performance? The very slightest tap on the wrist to aggressive atheists attempting to dominate the public square. Fact is, "science" will never get anywhere with key questions as long as it is wedded to materialism. And what about these "bad designs" in nature? As all things must die, bad designs are a way of building in the fatal flaw. If nothing could die, nothing could be born. That would sure put an end to any kind of evolution.

Go here for the next segment: 5. Here is what troubles me most about this whole Giberson and Biologos front for Darwinism

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: