re: X is intelligently designed means
Tim Ikeda (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:31:32 -0400
Keith Miller writes:
>This question of the meaning of ID that frustrates me the most is
>whether it can accommodate theistic evolution (continuous creation)
>or not. Statements from ID proponents have been inconsistent on
>this. Phil Johnson and others, while sometimes assenting that ID is
>not _a priori_ antagonistic to evolution directed and guided by God,
>nonetheless are very stringent in their rhetoric against those of us
>who hold just such a view.
Do you think that the intended meaning of ID would could be made more
clear if ID proponents answered the question:
"Do you think humans and chimps likely shared a common ancestor
and that our species diverged by "natural" mechanisms?"
Seldom are research programs launched without a goal. If we
better understood the goals or hoped-for outcome of the program
for which the tool of ID is being developed, perhaps we could get
a clearer picture of ID's intended scope.
email@example.com (despam address before use)