Replies

Thank you for your reply!

I kept your "may be explained" and only added the word "best".

yours: The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

my last: Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain features of life v non-life may be best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process.

The biggest difference between us that where you have "biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable" I prefer "features of life v non-life" so as to not unintentionally limit the discussion to bio/chemistry alone.

I kept your "may be explained" and only added the word "best".

I understand. And I resist the use of "best," based on Occam's Razor. It seems to me -- in my always humble opinion -- that if you have two possible explanations for a phenomenon, one being natural and undirected, and the other being (forgive me) an unseen intervention by little green men from Uranus, then without any further evidence to support the Uranus explanation, I don't think it can be seriously considered.

Well, yeah. But that really opens it up. In these threads, we're usually discussing the adequacy of the biological theory of evolution.