> Assume for a moment that it is the year 2020. Bill and Paul have just
> been awarded the Nobel prize for their work on ID which has established
> beyond reasonable doubt that the ID concept is valid, leads to some
> highly interesting science projects, etc. There is just no reasonable
> doubt now, in 95% of the scientific populace, that life on earth did not
> arise naturally, from inert chemicals, but that some intelligence was
> necessarily involved.
> Does ANYTHING change with respect to the ongoing debates about God? Not
> really. All that has happened is that science has (finally) shown that
> something more than mankind exists.
Yes but ...
_One_ reason the current ID movement is problematic is just the
ambiguity you make use of in this scenario. It's claimed to be purely
scientific with no "tehological speculation" &c. Behe, e.g., notes the
possibility of directed panspermia, time travel, &c. But then we're
told that it's needed for an adequate apologetic (e.g., PJ's post
yesterday) - & when all is said & done, does anybody doubt that the
"designer" is supposed to be "God"? How many ID proponents would be
satisfied if tomorrow we got a signal, a la _Contact_, saying "We seeded
your planet 4 x 10^9 years ago?