Do you think Mayr would state philosophically something contrary to what he believed to be scientifically so?
That he published his ides in a philosophical journal seems an irrelevancy unless you are asserting Evolution is philosophy free.
“There’s a difference between what the heliocentric theory is, and what someone thinks the philosophical implications are.”
Different? Yes, but not unconnected and one would have to be pretty obtuse not to understand that.
“Do you think Mayr would state philosophically something contrary to what he believed to be scientifically so?”
—No, do you think Francis Collins would?
It’s not even clear if Mayr was disagreeing with anything I said. If he meant “intelligent design” in the sense that the DI and many others now use it, than I’m in agreement with him.
“That he published his ides in a philosophical journal seems an irrelevancy unless you are asserting Evolution is philosophy free.”
—One can imagine all sorts of philosophical implications for Darwinism (and for anything else) but while doing so one shouldn’t lose sight of what Darwinism IS: It’s the theory that evolution occurs via mutations and selection.
What’s to rule out the idea of God designing the laws of nature for the purpose of creating us via Darwinian evolution?
It's interesting how evolutionists make numerous philosophical assertions, and when you address these with a philosophy article or argument, they dismiss it as 'just philosophy'. Darwinism is science, you see. No philosophy comes out of the mouth of a Darwinian, even when he's talking philosophy.