As usual, the evo/crevo 'discussion' is being framed as either/or, innately hostile and contentious.
I'd have thought that FR might have offered an alternative that does NOT reek of Muslim/Christian 'choose or die' logic;
How about asking (a) whether or not evolution and intelligent design are both hypotheticals?
And, (b)Is it possible to frame the study in a manner that might prove or disprove that the two could exist side by side?
(Meaning, identify Darwin's observations and identify what they do NOT state, ignore gospels and dogma except as an acknowledged influence along with the counter arguments of atheism, and allow structured discussion regarding what Darwin does NOT explain and what ID might explain, along with what might disprove ID within the framework of observed evolution and devolution of species, how evolution appears now to be a two way street, Etc.
There might be the odd chance that such an approach might actually advance knowledge.
Not using science, no. ID explains how Creationists would like how things to happen. It meets virtually no scientific criteria and certainly is not a "theory."
But thanks for the flowery language. It is always fun to see roses put on garlic plants.
There might be the odd chance that such an approach might actually advance knowledge.
Philsophical knowledge perhaps. And maybe "high flying" thought may open new avenues of inquiry, but unless and until such avenues are part of the scientific process (how can you falsify a Divine Being?) they must properly remain as part of philosophy.