Replies

I really shouldn't jump in here, but I can't help it. Permit me to offer a different formulation of the issue. If it's not helpful, disregard it and I'll continue to lurk. As I see it, the central hypothesis of ID is the assertion that there are features of living organisms which -- in principle -- cannot be explained by evolution. I emphasize "cannot" because it leaves out those features, perhaps a large number, that have not yet been explained. "Not yet explained" is quite different from "cannot be explained."

If such truly "inexplicable in principle" features are identified (and I see the search for them as a worthy subject for investigation) then the ID hypothesis becomes scientifically respectable -- in my always humble opinion. But I think it's premature to be proposing various agencies as possible causes of ID when the subject for the ID hypothesis (truly inexplicable features) hasn't yet been identified to the satisfaction of anyone outside of the narrow ID community.

As I see it, the central hypothesis of ID is the assertion that there are features of living organisms which -- in principle -- cannot be explained by evolution.

The claim is softer in principle -- it is an "overwhelming likelihood" claim, not a "to a mathematical perfection" claim. Again let us avoid creating strawmen. It's the kind of claim analogous to how I might state "I will not win the Powerball lottery" even though, in fact, I have bought a ticket to that lottery and so could theoretically win it.

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

PatrickHenry says: Permit me to offer a different formulation of the issue ... As I see it, the central hypothesis of ID is the assertion that there are features of living organisms which -- in principle -- cannot be explained by evolution.

Well, at this juncture, the only thing we're doing is defining our terms. It would seem to me that what you're describing, although typical of ID, is not a necessary attribute of ID (in other words, one may hypothesize that a feature is the product of intelligent design even though it can be explained by evolution). My expectation is that the matter will become relevant once we turn to the actual questions we're gearing up for, but is not requisite for the definition of ID itself.

If you do think that the above definition requires further modification, then the best way to proceed would be for you to take that definition and post an accordingly modified form so that we may consider it. For now, it seems to me that the definition is adequate for our purposes, which is to determine whether or not "panspermia" and/or "collective consciousness" are ID hypotheses.