Here is an interesting article on the failings of contemporary Intelligent Design arguments. Folks like me who have great sympathy for traditional design arguments have always been frustrated by the hijacking of this argument by the contemporary irreducible complexity/god of the gaps ID movement – a movement which undermines science and, frankly, undermines one of the best arguments for the existence of God. For those that are put off by contemporary ID arguments, don’t write off Thomas and other traditional design theorists with the same stroke. Aquinas’ design argument is strengthened by the success of science, not weakened by it. Here is a passage from the article:
“The emphasis in early Christian writings was not on complexity, irreducible or otherwise, but on the beauty, order, lawfulness, and harmony found in the world that God had made. As science advances, it brings this beautiful order ever more clearly into view. … … But whereas the advance of science continually strengthens the broader and more traditional version of the design argument, the ID movement’s version is hostage to every advance in biological science. Science must fail for ID to succeed. In the famous “explanatory filter” of William A. Dembski, one finds “design” by eliminating “law” and “chance” as explanations. This, in effect, makes it a zero-sum game between God and nature. What nature does and science can explain is crossed off the list, and what remains is the evidence for God. This conception of design plays right into the hands of atheists, whose caricature of religion has always been that it is a substitute for the scientific understanding of nature.”
USUPhilosophy 