[js1138]

No, it's not OK. You are just playing word games to avoid having to think. Honest people haveing a conversation do not run to the dictionary to play gotcha.

Honet people try to find common ground by defining there terms in a way that all sides can agree on. This is not done by consulting dictionaries. This is done by explaining what you mean by words. If the answer to the problems posed in this thread could be solved by consulting reference books, the thread would end after three or four posts.

It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. Look at what people are saying, try to find the best and most favorable reading of what they say, and respond to that.

[Fester Chugabrew]

No, it's not OK. You are just playing word games to avoid having to think.

Your personal assessment of my intent is sorely lacking in accuracy, but I know what you mean as far as how folks have a tendency to use the dictionary as a club. In this case, however, you've asked to use a definition we can all agree upon, and to that end I figured a dictionary would be just the right resource, because it represents common understanding.

If you want to propose your own definition of "intelligence" and "design" that's fine with me. Here are my own elementary definitions. Try not to laugh.

INTELLIGENCE (n.): 1.) the capacity to observe and evaluate sensory data. 2.) a body of data

DESIGN (n.): 1.) the quality of having purposefulness.

If we want to participate in this dialogue in a mutually edifying way I really think it would be in our best interests to decide upon dictionary definitions rather than our own, despite the otherwise rancorous history pointing to dubious motives.

So I am asking you as one who has patiently endured my meanderings on the subject, is it okay if we use dictionary definitions as we proceed from here?