Might then, your god be "too small"?

I understand your reticence at not baptising yourself in what appear to be treacherous currents. But such an awareness ought surely to imply the extension of a measure of respect to those theological and philosophical writers and scientists who are venturing forth there?

(Withal, given your influence and standing on the site, I cannot allow you to hide too far behind the ‘personally’ tag…thus:)

1. It really is a mistake to dovetail creationists and ID proponents. It is a form of (frequently deliberate, tho’ I assume not in your case) misinformation — one that only muddies the already turbuluent waters. Clearly these two groups may share similar worldview assumptions, such as the existence of a creator, but so do many non-ID, evolutionanary scientists.
2. I’m intrigued by your willingness to assume that ID proponents are necessarily dualistic. Particularly since your summary conclusion is that science and god are seperate entities and the twain won’t ever meet. The certain conclusion that God couldn’t, wouldn’t and shouldn’t show up in the physical sciences is reasonable, but based upon your own a priori assumptions, surely, and a form of dualism to boot?
3. Your ‘answered prayer’ anecdote neatly seperates events and meaning. The modern enlightenment scientific edifice regularly does not, as you surely well know, Andrew. This is the reality that we are facing as we enter the 21 century. A borderline totalitarian worldview which claims the moral high ground and eschews other that compete with it. Sure, like Hinduism, it will happily add non-authoratitive gods into it’s pantheon of explanations, but it retains the Ultimate Allegiance and definitive hold on modern society. ID "battlers" (and "fussers") understand this, perhaps in a way that doesn’t interest the "pure" theologian (a battle, I would say, that is the very opposite of dualistic, in searching for a wholistic worldview…but I digress…though not before recommending Schroeder’s extraordinary "The Science of God - the Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom")
4. On your point 2. we, of course, agree. But then so would ID propents, creationist and evolutionary theists of most brands. I would ,though, go further in suggesting that, at least in part, ID’ers are trying to unravel that very sense of — by your own admission — divine awe (which is "evidence" for you, while their ID science is not? I just don’t get that) They are trying to explain to us just what it is about creation that gives off this extraordinary sense that it is created…designed. How you can object to that is frankly a mystery to me, unless you have accepted the anti-ID propoganda given out by "naturalist" philosophers (whether scientists or not) who "just want to be left alone" — as all moral high-grounders always do!!
5. On your point 3, well I’m (almost!) speechless, Andrew — are you suggesting we never listen to the latest thinking on scientific issues, just because science (by definition, actually) is a changing, moving mess of theses? If we applied that to your own novel theological ideas, you’d never have got a hearing (unless you started up your own website, or self-published, of course…ah, yes, well you see my point, I hope?) [please forgive the cheap shot, I’m an envious, unpublished writer!]
6. Ditto, because we don’t understand everything about a scientific theory absolutely does not mean we cannot be expected to evaluate it! This is giving in to the idea that experts must always be listened to and never challenged (see Polanyi dedication below). A true expert, of course, is precisely one who knows and understands his craft and thesis so well, he can make it understandable and verfiable to others. To employ an analogy, I can’t play a musical instruments, but I can appreciate great orchestral and operatic overtures…
7. Of course, scientists who are committed to a naturalistic worldview will not readily, if ever, abandon their assumptions. But
   • it is vital to recognise the difference between a priori assumptions (particularly those inherited from the increasingly questionable Englightenment project) and consequential findings and theses. I venture to suggest that the ID debate has courageously helped to expose this tricky dualism.
   • it is vital that those who wish to work at science on the basis of a different worldview should not be villified inappropriately (even while they must accept the governing paradigm’s pre-eminence).
   • Rodney Stark has done some great work in his text "For the Glory of God" demonstrating from a social scientific point of view how science, as we understand it today, could not, would not have arisen from any other worldview than the Judeo-Christian one.

No doubt you might reiterate that correspondence such as this is exactly why you, personally (sic) don’t get much involved in it, Andrew, and I won’t castigate you for that… 

However, for anyone who is interested in grasping what "all the fuss" is about from those entangled within the ID phenomena, such as the brilliant, if flawed, William Dembski, as well as the pioneering Micheal Behe and the combative Philip Johnson, as well as less well-known figures such as Micheal John Denton, Frank Tipler, Robert Koons, Marcel-Paul Shutzenburger and David Berlinski, I highly recommend "Uncommon Dissent," a Reader notably dedicated to Micheal Polanyi — one of the true heroes of post-modernism — for his role in "freeing inquiry from ideology", a brilliant thinker who also gets a good mention in the Leslie Newbiggin text I referred to earlier: "Proper Confidence, faith, doubt and certainty in christian discipleship"

shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)