[goodusername]

“So now you are saying that Darwinism is incompatible with intelligent design. Previously you said “Darwinism doesn’t... exclude intelligent design”. Maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

—I guess I need to back up a bit. In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed but not in such a way that allowed for common descent via Darwinian evolution with the unfortunate name “Intelligent Design” or “ID” (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It really should be since it’s only an idea that “involves” intelligent design. Thus today we have the situation where someone like Francis Collins arguably now happens to be simultaneously the leading Darwinist scientist – the leading advocate of intelligent design – and the leading opponent of Intelligent Design. Better yet a different term should be used altogether.)

Thus when I used the phrase “intelligent design” I was merely referring to the idea that the universe and its laws have an intelligent Creator and purpose. Mayr, OTOH, was pretty obviously using the phrase as those in the “ID Movement” use it (I also completely missed before that he put “so-called” before “intelligent design” in the article last time I read it, which makes it even clearer that he was using it as a recently invented term, and not just as a generic phrase.)

[ColdWater]

I guess I need to back up a bit. In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed but not in such a way that allowed for common descent via Darwinian evolution with the unfortunate name “Intelligent Design” or “ID” (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.

ID always allowed for common descent. If they didn't, it would be creationism.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I guess I need to back up a bit

Yes, back to post 50, where you asserted that there is no conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design.

In the 90’s, some people – predominately a group called the Discovery Institute - began calling an idea that said that nature was intelligently designed

Mayr uses the phrase "intelligent design" here...

[Darwin] presented some fifty or sixty biological phenomena easily explained by natural selection, but quite impervious to any explanation under special creation, and equally inexplicable to so-called intelligent design.

He's obviously not talking about the Discovery Institute. Moreover, Mayr says that Darwinism eliminates final causes and teleology from nature. In short: no purpose, planning, design, foresight, meaning, goal or intention -- none of that sort of thing. He also says that "cosmic teleology" (purpose, intent, design of the universe) does not exist.