You're right; it's ID that Howard is asking for a definition of. But this
leads very quickly to the question of what _design_ is; hence my response.
As for a definition of ID, the IDers have been discussing this among
themselves. As I see it, ID is not so much a concept as a movement, and
what it is advocating has been extensively discussed, starting with the
major assertions of Phil Johnson and represented by ideas published in
_Origins & Design_ and in the books of those associated with the movement.
At this point, Howard and the rest of us will have to settle for a
_description_ of ID instead of a definition. Howard's push for conceptual
rigor is well-justified and a logical place to begin is with key ideas -
> >Howard Van Till wrote:
> >"As I've said many times before, until ID is candidly and publicly
> >by its proponents, there is no use talking about it. You cannot
> >argue about the presence or absence of something that has not been
> >defined in a way that is uniformly understood by all discussants."
> >"I'm still waiting for a candid and public answer to my question,
> >what does it mean to be 'intellinently designed'? Does it require an act
> >"mind," or "hand," or both? That is, is it an act of conceptualization
> >an act of assembly/form-imposing?"
Dennis L. Feucht
American Scientific Affiliation Newsletter Editor
Great Lakes Rocket Society
14554 Maplewood Road
Townville, Pennsylvania 16360