Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 14:19 (3982 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The article you have quoted contains the following:
> 
> "Now from the vantage point of intelligent design, treated strictly as a scientific inquiry, no theological or atheological position has a privileged place. Intelligent design, as a scientific research program, attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. This intelligence could be E.T. or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent. These are all, at least initially, live options...Forget about the term supernatural and the presuppositional baggage it carries. What if the designing intelligence(s) responsible for biological complexity cannot be confined to physical objects? Why should that burst the bounds of science?...But the contrast between natural and supernatural causes is the wrong contrast. The proper contrast is between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other...Design has no prior commitment against naturalism or for supernaturalism. Consequently, science can offer no principled grounds for excluding design or relegating it to the sphere of religion."
> 
> (The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2004, pp 188-190)-In your twisted thinking you don't see the real point. I know Dembski well, met him once, and read much of his works, that parapraph out of context, is simply trying to say that science cannot exclude the consideration of purposeful design in studying our reality. And that leads at another level, in another context to who is the designer?