Come on. Then what's the point of calling it Intelligent Design?

Bradford:

A theory can center around top down causality rather than the bottoms up approach that currently dominates.

Michael Denton is someone who comes to mind who criticizes the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis as being inadequate but posits a natural but teleological explanation for life in the universe. From what I understand of Denton's thinking, though I find him to be very vague on this point, is that he is leans towards some kind platonic explanation. Denton's book, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, certainly was a major influence on the thinking of Johnson, Behe and others. So term "intelligent design" is probably something of a misnomer since from the very earliest days of the movement (mid 1980's) there was some discussion of a natural versus intelligently based teleology.

But like bacteria adapting to antibiotics, creationism has slimmed down once again, this time shedding even a mention of an intelligent designer. A new textbook put out by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that promotes I.D., doesn't even have the words "intelligent design" in its index. Instead of pushing I.D. explicitly, "Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Darwinism," promoted as a high school- or college-level biology text, "teaches the controversy." Teach the controversy is the new mantra of the I.D. movement.

LOL. Yet recall the various critics over the years who have advised us to drop the term "Intelligent Design." How kind of them.

So even the critics now admit that there has indeed been a significant change in the post-wedge world. Yet they are also left with the fact that those of us at TT did not evolve "like bacteria adapting to antibiotics." There is a simple reason for this. Our interest in ID is both sincere and apolitical.

Come on. Then what's the point of calling it Intelligent Design?

A theory can center around top down causality rather than the bottoms up approach that currently dominates.

ID, in my view, can even consider, ultimate causes that are in fact unintelligent as long as those unintelligent causes explain phenomena that our current understanding of the physical world cannot explain. (The origin of life, for example)

Come on. Then what's the point of calling it Intelligent Design?

Slimming-down in response to anti-biotics. You mean bacteria doesn't beef-up in response to antibiotics? You mean you support Behe's Edge of Evolution thesis?

Oh, the rich irony!!!!

Gordy Slack, thank you.

I'm thankful too. It's like coming to bat against a softball pitcher when a guy firing 90+ is in the bullpen.

I think ID actually allows one to consider a wide range of possibilities instead of limiting your options to those of classical theism. ID, in my view, can even consider, ultimate causes that are in fact unintelligent as long as those unintelligent causes explain phenomena that our current understanding of the physical world cannot explain. (The origin of life, for example)

Very true John. Generally when one side has a hidden agenda they seek to constrict rather than expand available options. The only constriction device that is appropriate is the winnowing effect of empirical data. Any attempt to short circuit the process of evaluating an idea, by having it declared contrary to law, is contrary to freedom of inquiry. ID allows for consideration of possibilities some find dangerous because of a fear of where others will take the results.

Slimming-down in response to anti-biotics. You mean bacteria doesn't beef-up in response to antibiotics? You mean you support Behe's Edge of Evolution thesis?

Oh, the rich irony!!!!

Gordy Slack, thank you.

2. IDists do not avoid mentioning God. However, they do avoid alleging that which is not subject to empirical evaluation. That's why we discuss genes, mutations, biological systems and things along these lines. That's why design is assessed in the context of experimental data. There is no need to make an end run around the First Amendment when scientific data is the subject of discussions.

I think ID actually allows one to consider a wide range of possibilities instead of limiting your options to those of classical theism. ID, in my view, can even consider, ultimate causes that are in fact unintelligent as long as those unintelligent causes explain phenomena that our current understanding of the physical world cannot explain. (The origin of life, for example) Of course, I have no idea what those non intelligent causes would be I would only argue that it is something that we cannot logically eliminate. So it is simply wrong to say that because science cannot explain the complexity that we see in the world around us that the answer must be God. (That is creationism.) Instead ID says we cannot presently explain the the complexity in the world with are present knowledge of natural law. We should consider other possibilities. There is a wide range of possibilities and since we don't know the answer apriori we need to keep our options open.