Genisis says all was created in 6 days but yet it also says that God destroyed the World in the Great Flood.

So if this is so then how do we explain Biodiversity around the world?

ID says that life was created then evolved.

But then ID would have to recognize both Genisis and Darwinism but under ID's convictions it cancels both out so ID cant be Plausible

so in my view Science and Theology shouldn't mix

Ponder away! (But the evidence tends to indicate a spontaneous origin.)

Zachriel, you're a hoot!

Could be. Or, it could be stranger than that. Or perhaps even more weird.

In my book, I write:

There are certain traits any good investigator should possess. He should be able to approach the object in dispute with an open mind. If he comes to the dispute with a bias, he is likely to consider only the data that support his bias and ignore those that appear to contradict it.

I think this is a very important point. In fact, if either the ID proponent or the ID critic equates the designer with God, I'm not sure how one could keep an open mind or have much success in striving to remain as unbiased as possible. The moment someone makes the ID = God equation in their own mind, then, IMHO, the whole debate simply becomes a proxy for metaphysical posturing. There is a place for such things, but as part of an open-ended investigation? I think not.

So how would a theist, such as myself, get by with exploring design and life in a truly open-ened manner, and without being dragged down by metaphysics and theology? If there is interest, perhaps I should write an essay.

Do you think the intelligence that seeded earth with life, is the god of the bible?

So, if life is the result of an intelligent, purposeful cause (like a group of Harvard biologists 10000 years from now trying to seed life on other planets with some proto-life form, or the Christian God, or FSM, "¦) then there is the possibility that information and or mechanisms needed to drive the evolutionary process are part of that original design and plan.

Is that what you are saying?

Yes.

If so, do you assume or believe that life as we know it today descended from a single, original organism? Or do you allow for the possibility that there could have been multiple original organisms?

I envision the planet being seeded with a consortium of cells. And it was a consortium that could communicate with each other. Such communication would impose constraints on the permutations.

It sure sounds like you are when you specify non-teleological explanation. You could have missed out that word and thesentence would have the same meaning, without it being competitive.

If I had sent the manuscript out for pre-pub reviews, and someone pointed this out, I would have likely taken this advice.

It's one thing to deny evolution, which is supported by massive evidence and a track record of success. But denying abiogenesis does not entail the denial of massive evidence and a track record of success.

So, if life is the result of an intelligent, purposeful cause (like a group of Harvard biologists 10000 years from now trying to seed life on other planets with some proto-life form, or the Christian God, or FSM, …) then there is the possibility that information and or mechanisms needed to drive the evolutionary process are part of that original design and plan.

Is that what you are saying?

If so, do you assume or believe that life as we know it today descended from a single, original organism? Or do you allow for the possibility that there could have been multiple original organisms?

It seems to me that once you allow for design, you have to allow for all the permutations (that we can imagine) regarding designed systems. For example, consider computers, software, and cars where a forensic investigation of these artifacts over time would look an awful lot like the history of life (e.g., change over time, common descent, descent with modification). Yet, we "know" that each model of car, release of software and model of computer were explicitly designed, no matter how small the difference between models.

MikeGene: There is no solid justification with being upset with people who don't embrace non-teleological abiogenesis and ponder alternatives.

Zachriel: Ponder away! (But the evidence tends to indicate a spontaneous origin.)

How would that indicate the absence of teleology?

Seriously, you are correct when noting that ID can be dated back to the ancient Greeks (as explained in my book).

I know, I am reading it.

But I'm not trying to be competitive here.

It sure sounds like you are when you specify non-teleological explanation. You could have missed out that word and thesentence would have the same meaning, without it being competitive.

But the evidence tends to indicate a spontaneous origin.

In your mind, this may be true. But you are under the impression that I am rationally obligated to agree with you?