[js1138]

Chomsky is on record as being doubtful that evolution could produce the inborn language abilities he postulates. That puts him, I think, in the ID camp, if not the creationist camp.

[ggekko]

"That puts him, I think, in the ID camp, if not the creationist camp..."

Having read some of Chomsky's work I think he would repudiate any such identification. I think Chomsky would shoehorn his theory under a neo-evolutionary framework if he was asked to take a position on the subject (not that that makes any particular sense but he is idelogically hostile to teleology).

The question I was seeking to address was the one alluded to obliquely in the original post. Based on my cursory inspection of Chomsky's work his theory is not a valid scientific theory because it is not defined in such a way that it can ever be proven false. It reminds me a great deal of Freadianism where every psychological behavior is subsumed under the explanation of "supressed drives". Chomsky's "meta grammar" construct seems to me to be equivalent to Freud's "supressed drives"; it is so general of a explanation it is vacuous.