Abstract
The person who crawls into "no-man's-land" contested by warring parties can expect to be fired upon, and my two-part essay on 'naturalism' is such a venture. Theological concerns were raised about my claim that God's transcendence with respect to creation means we cannot "catch him at it" in the routine, mundane affairs of the natural world with which science deals. Other responses were concerned with science and philosophy of science. A third class of respondents defends the "intelligent design" hypothesis. Certainly, my essay argues that "intelligent design" (ID) as it stands is not "naturalistic" as I argue legitimate science must be, and it offers a different proposal for thinking about biology, which is "naturalistic." Defenders of "ID," therefore, are bound to disagree with my arguments. However, a good number of respondents find my arguments against "intelligent design" in science clear and convincing.