mutations (purposeful or not) are prior to natural selection. The mutations
give nature something to select.
>To use your definition of
>Darwinism, we would still have to define "current mainstream theories",
>wouldn't we? Do you think a concensus could be reached on that? Would
>"design" become "mainstream" when enough people consider it a possibility?
"design" (i.e. supernatural intervention) would become mainstream after
supporting data began to mount up. So far ID theorists haven't been able to
come up with a description of what something would look like if it were
"designed" and not natural.
Most of us can tell the difference between a plastic toy starfish and a
living one. But how do you tell the difference between a starfish
manufactured according to a supernatural design and one that was "designed"
by completely natural processes? ("it looks designed to *me*" doesn't
"Life itself is the proper binge."