I wonder if all the participants in this stimulating discussion of ID
(Intelligent Design) are using this term with the same meaning. Glenn
and Paul Wason and perhaps others have alluded to the need for a clear
definition of ID.
Understanding of any concept is fostered by a clear, concise definition
of the concept. Are all the discussers on this listserv using the same
definition of ID? Is it useful to use different definitions of ID in
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?
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)?
Q 3. What are the proper criteria for judging that something is (or is not)
an example of ID?
Donald E. DeGraaf, Prof. Emeritus of Physics, U. of Michigan-Flint
(home) 1008 Fremont St., Flint, MI 48504
(voice) 810-239-8281 (email) firstname.lastname@example.org