The ID crowd has produced some useful critiques and I suspect they are right about multiverses, but in general, they undermine their own position not because they inject ‘god’ into theory, although that’s true, but because the idea of ‘god’ on all sides is incoherent and inconsistent. You cannot bring ‘god’ into evolution and at the same time claim that the Old Testament is correct history or that its references to ‘god’ have a solid meaning. Kantian antinomies we should also note interfere at all points. You can set the Old Testament aside and start from scratch with a ‘god’ idea, but then you must absolutely change terminology, and you cannot invoke faith at any point. You will most probably get nowhere one way or the other. Blanket atheism is almost as incoherent as its opposite, theism. Kant has been banished by all parties. He could be wrong but his warning that the argument by design is wrong echoes here in the total silence of suppressed tenets. Humanity is stuck with idiots on both sides of these questions.
Questions about god were once well critiqued by ‘atheists’ but it seems less true now. Apparently the ID folk are right about the tactics of scientists to invent a multiverse to evade the ID argument. But there is no reason to evade that at all, simply it is essential to drop ‘god’ terminology and start over, and then you must confront the stance of Kant here.
And then there is the Samkhya scandal.
Check out my booklet, Samkhya, Ancient and Modern. Our demand for new or different terminology has been met, long ago. There a much more helpful approach to ‘god’ (they didn’t use that term, the Israelites neither) is taken: reality is a cascade of triads and the highest triad stops and the mystery of ‘god’ beyond that is not referenced. This approach has its own problems no doubt, but the change of terminology is refreshing, at least for a while. The great irony is that Christians originally appropriated this Indian philosopy which probably diffused via the Roman Empire and its connection with India. It may boggle the mind, but we can see that at its dawn Christianity for some at least was closer to the atheism of Samkhya but that the purity of the original was pressed into theological godism as the totally confusing version as the doctrine of the Trinity. That suggests that early Christians (and Jews) were equivocating an atheist yoga doctrine. Amazing. As the theology developed it turned into a mess,
Novella and Goff invoke “multiple everything” while at the same time defining “everything” in a way that precludes observation. Nonsense has its uses.