I find it ironic that it seems that SE is arguing that present scientific
methodologies cannot include ID since it involves an Intelligent Designer or
Creator. But at the same time it is argued that ID does not identify the
designer. So what is it?
Actually he suggests that Darwinism is anti-design but also quotes Dembski
""Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution
debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything
from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every
conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging
evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into
one great tree of life). "
So if ID is compatible with the most far ranging evolution, then how can
Darwinism oppose such a definition of ID and design?
This shows clearly that ID cannot exclude natural forces as the designer but
if that is the case, what value does the term design or even intelligent
design have if it leaves us with the same choices we had before?
Now if there were independent evidence for intelligent design in biology that
excludes the possibility of a natural cause then there would be something
interesting but ID does not provide us with tools to determine that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 14:16:50 EDT