Last week some statements "against" ID were made in this list. At that time I
said that a clear definition of what ID is was lacking. I also said that I
was not an IDer but a sympathizer based on limited reading on the subject. In
searching the internet for some general description of the ID position without
having to read a dozen of books (which I desire to read anyway), I came across
an article by Dr. Dembski which sumarizes the matter well (IMO). Below is and
excerpt of the article (which is long, it is actually the transcript of a
lecture). The entire text, for those interested, can be found at:
<http://www.discovery.org/crsc/crscviews/theologn.html>
Clearly something more than an honest concern for responsible scientific
inquiry is at stake when individuals of Dean Kenyon’s caliber are
prevented from even so much as expressing doubts about a scientific
theory, especially when they are acknowledged experts in the field. We
are dealing here with something more than a straightforward
determination of scientific facts or confirmation of scientific
theories. Rather, we are dealing with competing world views and
incompatible metaphysical systems. With the creation-evolution
controversy we are dealing with a naturalistic metaphysic that shapes
and controls what theories of biological origins are permitted on the
playing field in advance of any discussion or weighing of evidence. This
metaphysic is so pervasive and powerful that it not only rules
alternative views out of court, but it cannot even permit itself to be
criticized. The fallibilism and tentativeness that are supposed to be
part and parcel of science find no place in the naturalistic metaphysic
that undergirds Darwinism. It is this metaphysic, then, that constitutes
the main target of the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism, and to
which we turn next.