I.D.ers maintain that they make no effort to define the nature of the intelligent designer. Even with this in mind, I do not feel that I.D. will be taken seriously because it still invokes non-naturalistic causes.
But evolutionists like Richard Dawkins still have spent a lot of time and effort to refute I.D. theory.
Do you think that evolutionary research conducted solely to counter I.D. theory has made positive contributions to the knowledge base of mainstrean science?
Regarless of whether you buy into I.D. or not, do you think that I.D. research has made any positive contributions to the knowledge base of mainstrean science?
-Glenn
But evolutionists like Richard Dawkins still have spent a lot of time and effort to refute I.D. theory.
Do you think that evolutionary research conducted solely to counter I.D. theory has made positive contributions to the knowledge base of mainstrean science?
Regarless of whether you buy into I.D. or not, do you think that I.D. research has made any positive contributions to the knowledge base of mainstrean science?
-Glenn
