ID theory does not require identification of a specific designer.
****I believe that the most likely explanation is an intelligent design, that incorporates the ability to evolve/speciate in response to changing environmental conditions.****
Thanks for answering my question. Abiogenesis is not a tenable position to hold, yet it is what the secular science community hangs on to like grim death.
One of my favorite quotes comes from Dr. Richard Lewontin, a PhD Geneticist who retired from Harvard in 1998:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Quote taken from: Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.
Pretty damning.....
****ID theory does not require identification of a specific designer.****
Would you consider the God of the Bible to be a possible source of that intelligence, the probable source or not even an option?