Thank you. We are in complete agreement on the matter of whether questions of design or not-design are scientific. However, unless you have only learned the cartoon versions of the theory of evolution that are propounded by creationists, ID'ers and some of the more radical secular humanists, then you should know that the theory of evolution in no way addresses the question of design. Evolution is perfectly consistent both with design and with a lack of design in the living world. Evolution doesn't attempt to deal with design precisely for the reason that we have agreed to, namely that considerations of design are non-scientific, and evolution is a scientific theory.
Thanks for your reply.
I agree with you on most points, as we have both poited out. However "Evolution is perfectly consistent both with design and with a lack of design in the living world." Negates one prime mover in evolution: Natural Selection.
This process effectively gets rid of any outside intervention, so it does not entirely fit with ID.
Now if NS were able to be defined as simply the change itself and Survival of the Fittest, not the REASON for change, then I would agree 100% with you. But as it stands, believing that we organized ourselves into what we are assumes that no guiding force was ever involved.
This my not be the fault of the theory, but it most certainly is the fault of it's most avid boasters.