>"Design" is a word that is both a _verb_ and a _noun_. Check your
dictionary
>to verify this.
[snip snip]
>Howard has never responded to or acknowledged noun-definitions of design
>given by IDers. He wants IDers to define design as a verb. He has their
>answer, "We don't know at this time how design in nature is accomplished,
we
>just know that it exists."
Two points in reply:
1. Yes, proponents of ID sometimes use 'design' as a noun. They also make
numerous references to it as an action, agruing that there is empirical
evidence that something has been "intelligently designed." They started it;
I am merely asking for clarification.
2. If the manner of accomplishment were *not* an issue, as Bob here
suggests, then why is so much energy spent by proponents of ID on
attempting to demonstrate that "natural processes" could not have
accomplished the first assembly of certain creatures or biotic subsystems?
(Reminder: In place of "natural processes I would prefer to say "creaturely
actions" so that we Christians can keep in mind that whatever actions
atoms, molecules, or cells can perform represent capabilities that are
God-given "gifts of being" to the Creation, not autonomous powers that
displace the need for a Creator.)
Respectfully,
Howard Van Till