Weird interview in Jerusalem Post
JP -- . . . . you are a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute that studies and believes in Intelligent Design. How do you, as an Orthodox Jew, reconcile with this kind of generality - with the view of their (sic) being a hierarchy with a chief "designer" - while believing in and praying to a very specific God?
Medved -- The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
What? Whoever said anything about a "hierarchy with a chief 'designer' "? ID does not say anything about the designer(s).
It gets weirder:
JP -- The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.
Medved -- No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.
LOL -- I just love the irony of that statement -- "The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God. " The Darwinists say that ID is not scientific enough but some fundies say that ID is too scientific! That statement reminds me of the following news report:
Efforts to popularize "intelligent design" in Turkey are lagging, Reuters suggests, because most Turks "see no need to avoid naming God," but Education Minister Huseyin Celik recently told CNN Turk that "intelligent design" should not be disregarded just "because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation."
Ironically, fundies of all religions might even regard ID as blasphemous or sacrilegious because they might see it as implying doubt of god's word by suggesting that there is a need to provide scientific evidence to support creationism. Ironically, the Turkish education minister said that ID "should not be disregarded just 'because it coincides with beliefs of monotheistic religions about creation' " whereas the Darwinists say that ID should be rejected for that reason.
BTW, I agree with Medved's answers.