>My questions to each of you:
>
>Q 1. What is _your_ definition of ID?
> Is ID an _activity_ (of a designer), or the _result_ of such
>activity? I.e., is ID a verb, or a noun?
It is a verb, whatever an intelligent being designs. It does not rule out the
intelligent design of living systems by means of evolution.
>
>Q 2. When a qualified person forms the opinion that something is (or is
> not) an example of ID, is that a _scientific_ conclusion (based on
> interpretation of scientific evidence), or a _trans-scientific_
> (theological or philosophical) conclusion (based on other grounds)?
>
Unless you have a definition of ID you have no basis upon which to conclude
anything is intelligently designed. This holds regardless of your
qualifications.
Anthropologists have a clear definition of what a hominid is so that when they
find a set of bones, they can conclude that it is or is not a hominid. Why ID
types don't have this definition I don't know, but the thought has occurred to
me that they can't define it.
>Q 3. What are the proper criteria for judging that something is (or is not)
> an example of ID?
I don't know. I think the entire world was designed and that God used
nonlinear dynamics with the living systems.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm