[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! I must make this quick - I have to cook and such.

Well, yeah. But that really opens it up.

Exactly. That is the point. Looking at the intelligent design hypothesis only from the bio/chemical viewpoint is to prejudice the conclusion - which leads me to your first point on your reply:

I understand. And I resist the use of "best," based on Occam's Razor.

The quality of "best" ought to be determined on ideologically and theologically neutral ground.

IMHO, all of science ought to be ideologically and theologically neutral - not prejudiced toward any metaphysical worldview.

[PatrickHenry]

Me:
I understand. And I resist the use of "best," based on Occam's Razor.

You:
The quality of "best" ought to be determined on ideologically and theologically neutral ground. IMHO, all of science ought to be ideologically and theologically neutral - not prejudiced toward any metaphysical worldview.

Okay, but how in the world is ID going to be judged "best" in the absence of any theological bias? Frankly, based on the lack of research and some unguarded admissions (you've seen the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project") most of the evos here strongly suspect that ID is nothing but closeted theology. Despite that, I've been seriously trying to frame it as a scientific hypothesis. However, if the wording of the hypothesis flat-out declares that even if there's a natural and unguided explanation, ID (although unsupported by evidence) is nevertheless a serious contender, and perhaps the "best," -- a clear ideological preference -- then I'll just drop back into lurking mode.