This is a cool blog, btw

consider yourself thanked.

In some ways it can be thought of in the same way as late 19th Century/early 20th Century Darwinism: though not all evos are either conversant or comfortable with it, Darwinism's early progress in acceptability was tied, in part, into existing philosophical and sociological trends:

1) the 19th Century was the century when 'progressivism' really came into its own: the concept that, by some automatic principle(s), life in just about all its aspects———–political, economic, etc——–was getting better and better via a process not unlike biological random mutation and natural selection.

2) white Europeans/Americans in considerable numbers preferred to think of their own race as 'more advanced' and Darwinism was a way to vindicate this view 'scientifically'.

Naturally 1) and 2) had strong repercussions across the boards: eugenics,
social Darwinism, an excuse for further colonization of Third World countries etc.

Modern (late 20th Century/early 21st Century) evos don't feel either guilty about this or obligated to wall themselves off from it. They merely take what was useful and slough off the rest…….

Whether or not intelligent design as part of biotic reality could very well impact someone's theology or metaphysics. It would depend on the way that person approached reality. For example, many people commonly conflate ID with religion and an intelligent designer with God. Thus, if that person believes a) God exists and b) God's existence must be empirically detected by science and c) ID is the only way to scientifically detect God's existence, well then, sure, if ID fails to produce, that person will probably stop believing in God. In fact, I have seen that happen. But as you know, the failure of ID does not translate as the non-existence of God. Heck, even from a mainstream-type of ID position, ID is about detecting design and the failure to detect design does not equate as the non-existence of design.

My point about theology was stated clearly above - I was not trying to suggest that theology is not true. I simply try to approach ID in a truly open-ended and investigative manner. I have ideas about how to assess whether something like the bacterial flagellum was designed (and I shall soon be making that more clear). But those ideas don't draw from theology (or at least, in any way that my conscious mind is aware of). And I just don't see how theology would help me determine whether the bacterial flagellum owes its design to intelligent agency. Is there something wrong with this?

Are there connections with my theology? Sure "“ it helps me to adopt the open-ended approach that I do.

I said that "neo-Darwinian evolution can co-exist with the design of life." You said that it is my burden to prove. Well, thanks to biotechnology, we know that human design of biological organisms does exist in a reality where things also exist because of neo-Darwinian evolution. Today, some scientists are even trying to design new life forms, and if they are good at it, I predict these new life forms will be able to evolve according to neo-Darwinian evolution. So is there some reason why the design of life cannot co-exist with Darwinian evolution? Are you saying, for example, that the neo-Darwinian evolution of bird flight would mean that it was impossible that anything else amid biotic reality could have been designed?

As for the distinction between ID and "the design of life," I don't evaluate the merits of an idea based upon who came up with the idea or why the came up with the idea. As I see it, ID is an idea that simply postulates than some aspect of life was designed by some form of intelligence. I can speak about intelligence simply because I have extensive experience with the acts of intelligence. As for the design of life, that is getting a little closer to a hypothesis about history "“ life itself was designed.

You claim that I claimed to be an agnostic. Where did I claim this? You ask if I am a "naturalist." Is that someone who believes that only Nature exists? You ask, "Thus, in your opinion, is the designer or Designer a purely natural source?" Both my theology/metaphysics and my investigation leave that an open option. Someday it might become clear to you. You ask, "Did the "˜design' that your hunches lead you to happen in the course of nature?" Yes, the clues for design have been uncovered by science as it studies nature. You ask, "Is it a natural conclusion or a theological conclusion, or a combination of the two, which constitutes your approach to ID?" It's the position of someone who recognizes his own limitations while having an intrinsic tolerance of ambiguity that allows me to express and follow-up a genuine curiosity. There is no other relevant "conclusion" that guides my approach (at least, that I can think of at the moment).

Answering these questions would help your viewers to distinguish Mike Gene-ID from IDM-ID.

Done that. Been there.

Until then,

G.A.

Hey Mike, I'm not impatient, but you seem willing to answer questions and even start other threads.

Notice they are very short. A reply to your post would take a little more time, don't y'think?

"Many in the IDM view IC as something that renders Darwinian evolution impossible. I don't." - Mike Gene

Hey Mike, are you a 'naturalist'? Darwin was a naturalist, evolution is naturalistic; it shouldn't be too embarassing to join the category of such an eminent thinker and his legendary theory. Or do you disagree with (certain features of) naturalism and naturalistic evolutionism?

"I am not trying to suggest that theology is not true. I'm simply try to approach ID in a truly open-ended and investigative manner." - Mike Gene

I'm curious to hear then, Mike's response to those who pit naturalism and theology as against one another. Most IDM-IDists who are theists would like to keep an open-ended approach too. But their open-ends include an Alpha and Omega that apparently require a Designer that is ultimately not purely naturalistic.

Arago

"I'll try to get to them as soon as I can." - Mike Gene

Hey Mike, I'm not impatient, but you seem willing to answer questions and even start other threads.

Are you still planning to respond to my questions?

G.

And there are now two universities that discuss intelligent design in the classroom.

Mike,

The number is much higher:

Cornell
Knox College
University of Memphis (John Angus Campbell)
University of Alabama
Cal State Fullerton
University of Minnesota (Chris Macosko)
Akron (Dan Ely)
Iowa State University (Ingerbritzen)
Leheigh (Michael Behe)
University of Toronto
George Mason University
James Madison University
NVCC (Caroline Crocker)

various religiously affiliated institutions
Biola (Paul Nelson)
New St. Andrews (Gordon Wilson)
Loma Linda (Timothy Standish)
Bryan College (presumably Kurt Wise)
Liberty University (Tim Brophy)
Patrick Henry College

There are probably more…the above may not have course listings explicitly saying, "ID", but I know the professors and the content being taught. That's 18 reported universities. I would not be surprised to see more as Bruce Alberts and friends are encouraging discussion.

I expect the number of universities involved to continue rising.

Salvador

- G.A.