For me it is a directed process, but since it is within the law of physics and math, it cannot be proven that it is a directed process. Just as well, it cannot be proven that it is completely random. :-)

I disagree that Intelligent design necessarily need little miracles. For me it means that the universe, and the creation of life is according to Gods plan. Probability gives God enough leeway to effect what happens, without in most cases needing a miracle. Einstein said God does not play with dice.
For me God plays with loaded dice. Things still appear to be random, but according to His will.

Barr clearly stated that it does NOT give credence to creationism.

Quantum mechanics, string theory. Although not specifically to Jewish or Christian values, but certainly in somewhat more spiritual direction.

Without taking sides, sure there is one second person of the trinity. In my opinion the redemption is extempore. By it I mean that dough in this world it happened at a specific time, its effect was on before and after, i.e. for eternity.
Since in one sense God (Christ) is not tied to dimension, he can be everywhere at the same time, it could be possible, that the one and only act of redemption was independent of time and and space, i.e. could happen in more than one place and time, and only from the human point of view, one place and one time. (In physics the are tensors, describing one thing, but multidimensional)

Oh, thanks! And just not to make too many replies, thanks re mentioning as well re other bans, and possibly where to find some folks. Very kind of you.

Interesting. I don't see that these "checks and tests" provide evidence or any such thing. They are merely rational systems that function well and in which we see the best route towards a common view of reality. But none of it, not a bit of it, goes to proving that we are deluded or unaware; that's simply beyond our ability. We rest, necessarily, on our perceptions, and build from those, though by all means it's not as simple as I say it and there are whole philosophies struggling with such questions.

But mainly, I think that logic, proof, and the scientific method all have nothing to do with determining "delusion or unawareness" except in the social and conventional sense of how we see each other and see each other's beliefs. They (okay, mostly) do nothing to determine whether, for example, our (human, common) perceptions are entirely wrong.

By my way of thinking, that's simply an acceptable carrying cost of conducting our lives on a partially-converged sense of something we call "reality." To the degree there may be such a thing as an objective reality, the accepted common philosophical methods appear to function. We have little recourse but to depend on those perceptions and observations. That is, as said, just how I see it; some by all means (logically and rationally) disagree.

I think that the point is not "one should not be skeptical of religious claims" but that one can still be rational and logical without necessarily applying the scientific method.

To your points/questions, I think you'd find it interesting to read, if you haven't already, Hans Kung's "Does God Exist?" But it's a hell of a read, I found it dense, and I admit I didn't get through it! You can't fault it for lack of logic or rationality, even if you disagree, though, I believe (it didn't turn me into a believer, to the extent I read it, but I can't fault the logic).

How is it not consistent with the idea of a perfect creator God who wants us to love him? (Again, I don't believe in such, but I don't see the inconsistency.)