Well, yes, but such a view cannot be used as a “proof” (so to speak) of God’s existence in the same way that Paley’s argument was.

Biologos,
Please elaborate on what you have quoted approvingly:
“However, with the advent of evolutionary theory, modern theologians could consider a God who was “much wiser than even that,” a God who chose to “make all things make themselves.” This new view of natural theology, promoted by Kinglsey, looked at God as continually present and active in the slowly evolving natural world, which he bestowed with the capacity to evolve.”
How does God guide evolution? How can we perceive His majesty in this supposedly “random” and “natural” process?

A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.”

Darwin himself wrote in the Origin:

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.

For IDists, the universe is so finely tuned that it points to the Designer, yet God has to constantly intervene to keep P. falciparum virulent.
Religion has typically seen God in intervention or in finely-tuned constancy, but not generally in both, since the requirement of intervention implies that God could not make a universe that would unfold according to plan. To be sure, those who insist that God carefully designs diseases for humanity and produces apparently evolved “poor design,” are not likely to come up with very coherent views of fine tuning and of intervention.
What Darwin and Kingsley wrote is in agreement with the typical implications of cosmological fine-tuning. What IDists claim is not. They ought at least to give up cosmological fine-tuning (which is at least an actual problem for science, unlike ID’s claims regarding biology), if they are going to insist that God has to intervene in life’s evolution.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

In an 1871 lecture “The Natural Theology of the Future”, English theologian Charles Kingsley discussed how evolution did not bring about an end to natural theology. Arguments like Paley’s, he maintained, came about from a belief that God made all things in the same way a watchmaker made each watch he sold. However, with the advent of evolutionary theory, modern theologians could consider a God who was “much wiser than even that,” a God who chose to “make all things make themselves.” This new view of natural theology, promoted by Kinglsey, looked at God as continually present and active in the slowly evolving natural world, which he bestowed with the capacity to evolve.
If God is virtual and instantiates in a way that is similar to a fractal equation when it is iterated into a manifesting form, I can see God as continually present and active in the slowly evolving natural world. This view of God is one which avoids the problem of anthropomorphic project, (which I see as one of the major problems of Christianity, which posits a person-All God.)
What I wonder is: How will someone who is strongly attached to the personal view of God come to relinquish this cherished projection? When I left Christianity it was an accumulation of undeniable doubts spawned from university education as it provided greater awareness of both science and the richness of other philosophies and religions. For others it may be a struggle with theodicy, especially when some extreme form of suffering is visited on a loved one, or an arbitrary “act of God” causes death and suffering. I expect that usually it is not a single thing, (though a single thing may be the trigger), to realizing that one is no longer a believer.
For those who left the fold: What lead to your de-conversion? Did you or do you still struggle with any of the artifacts of your former beliefs, or did they simply ossify and fall away completely? (This is what happened in my case, and my interest in formal religion today is from an anthropological-psychological point of view.)
For those who someone manage to mix the oil and water of Christianity and science: Do you struggle to maintain a divide between these, or have you reconciled them harmoniously without cognitive dissonance?

You’re out hunting Bobwhite quail in some rolling hills of a large farm with some friends. You neglect to look at your watch and it is twenty minutes past the time when you’re supposed to be heading back to the city in the new Ford truck just purchased by one of them.
As you unload your shotgun and start back to the truck, you step in a pile of wildlife poo.
Now, what life form set down that stool sample may make someone wonder briefly, but unless scatology plays an important part in your professional life or is a sophisticated hobby, what is squished into most guys boot is just a situation dealt with. The new truck owner is hardly going to be fascinated about what is mashed into the floor mats stinking up his new ride.
To most people (especially the vehicle’s pilot and passengers), the possession, study and detailing of the condition and origins of that pungent paste, is not necessary for a good life.
Myth, metaphor, or evidence based.

Albert,
I tried twice responding to you at the other post, but for some reason, it was blocked.

Mere_Christian
It seems from your comments of late that you feel that arguing this issue is a waste of time. If so, why do you keep reading (and posting)?
It is certainly true that one can have a fulfilling life and a fulfilling faith without ever concerning oneself with the origins of life, but many people do see the issue of the factuality of evolution as having a huge impact on their faith (whether a belief in God or a belief in no god), not to mention the impact on critical thinking and science education, all of which have huge downstream impacts on quality of life.

Albert,
To answer your question, I am in the midst of trying to harmonize the “oil and water” of science and Christianity, as you put it. I don’t yet know what will come of this effort. I too have experienced an accumulation of doubts that have led me to a greater openness to science as well as the world view of others. I have wondered myself about the “attachment” to a personal God. I believe it would be difficult for myself many reasons to relinquish it. However, I believe it would be easier for me to accept no God than a malevolent God or a deist God.

Amy B,
Either there is a god/personal god/impersonal god/malevolent god/deist god/etc., or there isn’t. Whether you, or I, or anyone else likes any of these ideas has no bearing whatever on whether or not they are true.

Knockgoats,
I agree that my personal preference has no bearing on whether or not there is a God. I was just answering Albert’s question about my experience with my faith. I acknowledge that as I continue to study I may have to reject things I deeply wish were true.

Amy B,
Fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

Amy,
So long as you are honest with yourself, and are not bound by hopes and fears, you will find a path that suits you. The difficult part is to move through the transitional period(s) with calmness, to move peacefully into the future, with an acute mind and joyful spirit. If you can manage that, all will be well, no matter where you go.
Why?
Because, if God exists, an honest seeker pursues truth without ulterior motive. And if God does not exist, you will learn far more with this attitude than through being in a prison of fear, dreaming of heaven.
Either way an honest exploration of life is best. It is difficult though because there are many distractions, blinds, and a lot of unpleasant things to experience along with the beautiful.

Knockgoats-I appreciate your straightforward yet fairminded posts, I wish everyone followed suit.
Albert-I agree that being an honest seeker is the main priority. Your comments are very thoughtful and hopeful, thanks. It is a bit unnerving, not knowing where this will all lead. However, it’s such a liberating feeling, pursuing my questions instead of fearing condemnation for my doubts. You certainly seem to have a joyful and poetic spirit about you.

“How does God guide evolution? How can we perceive His majesty in this supposedly “random” and “natural” process?”
During human sexual reproduction, the female ovaries contain thousands of eggs. The male testes contain millons of sperm. During fertilization, it’s a crapshoot as to which single sperm will fertilze which single egg. Sure there are some laws governing it, but the odds of “you” happening are 1 in billions. Yet, the bible says that God knew each and every one of us from before the foundation of the world.
To answer your qeustion: however you precieve God’s majesty in this supposedly “random” and “natural” process of sexual reprodcution is exactly how we precieve his majesty in this supposedly “random” and “natural” process of evolution.

During human sexual reproduction, the female ovaries contain thousands of eggs. The male testes contain millons of sperm. During fertilization, it’s a crapshoot as to which single sperm will fertilze which single egg. Sure there are some laws governing it, but the odds of “you” happening are 1 in billions. Yet, the bible says that God knew each and every one of us from before the foundation of the world. – Gordon J. Glover
That must mean he knew everything everyone would ever do, all the decisions everyone would ever make, good, evil or indifferent. Creates certain difficulties for the idea that this God can somehow be absolved from responsibility for the vast amount of suffering resulting from some of these decisions, not to mention the ideas of free will and divine justice, wouldn’t you say? Of course the Calvinists are at least consistent on this – their God created people he knew in advance he would fry in hell for all eternity. Puts the picayune misdemeanours of Hitler and Stalin in perspective beside those of the Divine Torturer, eh?