[Blueflag]

tophat -- read his book. He takes issue with Intelligent Design (the movement and some of its thinking.) He has no issue with (and affirms) the Creator as an intelligent designer. When you read the book, as opposed to a review, you can see that he presents of valid argument. He mainly attacks the Intelligent Design movement from a "God of the Gaps" standpoint.

You would be premature to label Collins argument as illogical.

[muawiyah]

Definitely ~ Darwinists have also drank from the fountain of "gaps" attributing to some mystical force they call "Natural Selection" to explain why certain features came to be.

Unbeknownst to them, genes were shuffling about, or being added to (through duplication, and possibly "mutation"), all on their lonesome and without any illeffect on the critters.

It's really not necessary that Darwinists and Creationists use the exact same metaphysical logic, although they do.

[RussP]

>tophat -- read his book. He takes issue with Intelligent
>Design (the movement and some of its thinking.) He has no
>issue with (and affirms) the Creator as an intelligent >designer. When you read the book, as opposed to a review, >you can see that he presents of valid argument. He mainly >attacks the Intelligent Design movement from a "God of the >Gaps" standpoint.

If you think that "God of the Gaps" is the main argument of ID, then I think you fundamentally misunderstand ID. That's the evolutionist caricature of ID.