[count-your-change]

Then the obvious question for “goodusername” is, How did Mayr use ““intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did”?

[goodusername]

That would be an obvious question if I hadn’t explained it to him in a previous post . But I don’t blame you one bit for thinking I hadn’t from the way he responded.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Then the obvious question for “goodusername” is, How did Mayr use ““intelligent design” in the way I’m pretty sure he did”?

Yes, it's an obvious question. Despite "goodusername"'s so-called previous explanation and backpedaling, Mayr says that "cosmic teleology... does not exist". However, "goodusername" feels that this is compatible with the notion that the "universe and its laws have an intelligent Creator and purpose."

It seems that it is not only some theists who go into metaphiscial contortions to accomodate evolution with the rest of their ideas, but atheists as well.