I agree that the IDers have apparently narrowed the meaning of intelligent
design. The question I wanted to raise was whether the time has already
come for everyone to accept the definition of Dembski et al. and look for
some other word or phrase to use in referring to something that fits the
broader natural meaning of the words `intelligent design'.
It is not unusual to have to look for new terminology to replace what was
used formerly because someone has narrowed or broadened the original
meaning. It would be accurate to describe ASA members as Christian
scientists, but we don't because someone else has hijacked that term to
make it refer to people who don't literally fit that description.
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> >From: gordon brown <email@example.com>
> > Have the ID people changed the meaning of intelligent design so that no one
> > else can use it in a favorable sense?
> Yes, in effect. In most ID literature, to be "intelligently designed" means
> to be assembled (at least for the first time) by the form-conferring action
> of some unembodied extranatural agent because the system of natural
> formational processes is presumed inadequate to account for that assembly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 20 2002 - 16:45:04 EST