Greta Christina is well worth a read and a couple of links from within the article that are worth checking.
Oolon Colluphid's Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes
and Geta Christina's own Stupid Design: Rube Goldberg Brains and the Argument for Evolution

against intelligent design.

But I think she neglects that fact that there are religious people who believe in science in general and evolution in particular who do not accept intelligent design. These people think god may have overseen things but did not play any active role.

In not recognizing that those people exist, and represent a very large group of believers, she makes some broad brush assumptions about the incompatibility of religious belief and science.

I think she is wrong in that conclusion.

To paraphrase her, I understand that there are people who want to be able to dismiss all religion as not being consistent with reality, but not seeing those that honestly reconcile results in a very faulty argument.

It is against theistic evolution. They are two entirely different animals.

The former is outright creationism (in a cheap tuxedo); the latter is science, but with apologetics to theology. Two entirely different things.

Please do not use the ID label for this article. Greta Christina is absolutely not discussing Intelligent Design here.

Regards.

Intelligent design, as was beautifully determined by federal judge John Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover, is nothing more than creationism, or as one biologist has said, "Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

This is about theistic evolution, which is basically about attempting to rationalize evolution with religion by stating that, after all, god really did it. Either that, or to rationalize religion. One wonders what Catholic biologist -- and fierce defender of evolution -- Kenneth Miller would say. Normally he plays the faith card, "There's a reason they call it faith." He might be the icon of theistic evolution, and figured very prominently in the Dover trial which basically killed intelligent design. BTW, he was on the science side and his testimony destroyed the ID (so-called) scientific arguments.

So, no. Theistic evolution is not intelligent design.

in it. I think that is what she is addressing. I've always thought of that as intelligent design, but theistic evolution is a term that makes sense.

I recommend reading the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion. John Jones was a GW Bush appointee and a life-long Republican. But he has proved to be a very good jurist. In addition to the Kitzmiller he recently upheld LBGT marriage rights. (There may be hopes for some Republicans.)

This is the iconic intelligent design case -- it basically killed the strategy -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with Greta Christina's article.

Sorry, my friend. This isn't remotely about ID.

I scanned the opinion and will read more of it later. I appreciate you explaining this.

Is there generally a misunderstanding about this? Have there been any cases concerning "theistic evolution"?

Mainly because the science is at the forefront. Myself, I don't understand it. I don't see how anybody can defend biology and theism simultaneously -- other than deism, but that's decidedly not theism.

I think that people basically compartmentalize their beliefs. It's called cognitive dissonance. The human brain seems to be able to do this quite easily. (Not to bring evolutionary psychology into this, but this may be a normal mode in humans. It certainly seems to be a common one.)

As always.

I think lots of people do that and do not have cognitive dissonance because the ideas are not contradictory.

There is no doubt that people compartmentalize all kinds of things. At times this includes religious beliefs, but it is certainly not unique to that. Rationalization is what most people do to try and make contradictory ideas compatible.

But, imho, religion and science are not contradictory ideas. They are decidedly different and can't even be compared.

Hope you are well. It is beautiful today and we are about to take a drive.

but she never mentions Intelligent Design in her article. She talks about God guided evolution, and that is what she shows to be without evidence and contrary to known facts.
I think it might have been an editor who got it wrong.

It is often an ignorant editor who writes the title.

God guided evolution. Yes, there can be evidence to disprove something.
As you pointed out, believers just fall back to having faith in the absence of any evidence.
At least those know to leave science alone and not try to change it to fit their beliefs.

Except it's human intelligence doing the design.
And we've made some major design errors.
Which hopefully we can fix.

We've trumped evolution, and that's a problem. I also hope we can fix it.

We (and all of our artifacts) are just a part of it.

And HAL (from 2001, A Space Oddesy) is every bit as much a product of natural evolution as we are.

Adaptation is no longer the key. Having enough money to access health services, eat good food and have potable water lead to survival.

you get a universe so brutal and irredeemable that if it were the creation of someone, they would be cruelly malicious or grossly incompetent. The only saving grace is that there is actually nobody to blame for this state of affairs. I guess given all that, my question is:

Given the amount of suffering this universe is capable of creating, does Greta Christina think we should make it our mission to destroy all possibility of life (as far as we are able to) as quickly and painlessly as possible to avoid this suffering, since this universe wouldn't have been worth conscious creation if there had been a consciousness to consider the possibility?

If not, how can she justify tolerating this level of suffering for a few scraps of enjoyment here and there? The burden would appear to vastly outweigh the benefit. Are we just victims of our drive to survive and reproduce, and that's the only reason we haven't mercifully ended things?

As an alternative, perhaps this universe was worth creating after all if all the pain and suffering is in the process of being redeemed by the virtues of courage, loyalty, compassion, forgiveness etc. that would be meaningless without difficulties that necessitate them.