> DT: In this area, it is Darwinists
> who are muddying the waters! My agument here is for consistency.
>
> Pim: I agree. But they are only human.
Interesting! I hope we are not seeing a hint of double standards
here.
> DT: In a way, I agree with the Darwinian authors of the letter to Nature.
> Where I disagree with them is that this Darwinian position is the
> only one that is acceptable in the academic community.
>
> Any scientific explanation which does a better job at explaining the observations of evolutions would be acceptable.
DT:: But if intelligent causation is part of the explanation, some will rule this as unacceptable. This brings us full circle in the argument.
One can always invoke a "deus ex machina" but unless there is evidence supporting such an intelligence and unless it can explain the observation better than a hypothesis without, there is not much use for it.
My problem with ID is that it does not explain nor does it contribute any additional knowledge to science. All it does is: Well, it looks designed.