You are probably correct that ID does not yet have a rigid definition.
However, all who call themselves ID are united on one thing: Skepticism of
"random mutation and natural selection" as the explanation of nature's
complexity. IDs would also probably all be in agreement about skepticism that
the origin of life was a random coming together of inert chemicals. Most,
not all, Darwinists are materialists, but I think I can safely say no
supporter of ID would define himself as a materialist. Again, that which
unites all IDs is skepticism of "random mutation and natural selection" as
the creator of life's complexity.
The definition of ID might be vague, but none of us seem to have any trouble
deciding which side of the arguement we are on, do we?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 17:10:29 EDT