You Asked For It. You Got It. ID Versus Thomas Aquinas Smackdown
I've had enough. You've pushed me over the edge. I pull out the NRO.44 Automag of philosophers: Ed Feser. The comment thread is 62 comments long, the text is a couple of thousand words but I thought I'd introduce you all to the Thomistic critique of Paley's design argument and have you toss around the possibility that there's a 3rd way of looking at the problem:
From an Aristotelian-Thomistic (A-T) point of view, one of the main problems with “Intelligent Design” theory is that it presupposes the same mechanistic conception of nature that underlies naturalism. (See here, here, and here for some of my earlier remarks on this and other problems with ID.) ID theorists sometimes object to this characterization of their position, as William Dembski does several times in his book The Design Revolution (e.g. at pages 25 and 151).
I'm not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but you can read it at your leisure and chime in in the comments.