Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

John Lynch: “I Admit It… I Teach Intelligent Design”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Arizona State University Professor of Evolutionary Biology John Lynch admits he teaches something on the topic of intelligent design. I shudder to think what it is he teaches about it but that’s neither here nor there for the point I’m about to make.

Biology profs all tell us (or it seems like all of them) that teaching evolution at the high school level is done in some measure to prepare students for what they’ll encounter at the college level.

Okay. College preparation. I’ll buy that. A very reasonable position statement. However, if they’re also teaching ID at the college level, what justification is there for banning the mere mention of ID at the high school level? Shouldn’t we be preparing high school students for what they’ll encounter in college with regard to ID in the same way we prepare them for evolution?

I’d like John to explain the schism here. Why is it justifiable to teach whole chapters about evolution in the name of prepping high school children for college but the mere mention of ID to them is verboten?

On an aside, my daughter’s teacher in Biology 101 assigned the class a writing project to compare and contrast the modern synthesis with intelligent design so I already knew that it was being taught on college campuses by biology teachers. It seems John’s not at all unusual in that regard. The unusual thing, if any, might be admitting he teaches it.

Update: In Cobb County, the sticker didn’t mention ID or religion. It just said evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be carefully studed and critically considered. Even that was too much for Darwinists. Maybe in college they teach that evolution is a fact that can’t be criticised and that’s what high schoolers are being prepped for, eh? Yes, I think that must be it. -ds

Comments
Karen says, "But in ID, the designer is responsible for some of the changes that arise, right?" Karen, the "implications" of ID are not "ID". ID says only this: "certain features of the natural world—from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, to the fine-tuning of physical constants—are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause." http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571 ALL scientists agree there is design in nature. The disagree about whether the design is real or apparant. Darwinists say the design is only apparant, that features whether simple or complex are best explained by "unintelligent" causes: random mutation and natural selection. ID says design in nature is real because random mutation and natural selection cannot explain some features (discovered only in the last 40 years) that exhibit "irreducible complexity". A simpler system at best doesn't work or at worst makes survivability impossible. The possibility that the complete functioning system arose all at once by chance is less than the universal probability bound, meaning it is not possible. ID has NOTHING to say about the responsibility of the designer.Red Reader
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
As I understand it, the science of evolution addresses neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life. It doesn't tell us that the material world is all there is, because, as noted, that is a philosophical point, not a scientific one. Science is restricted to the natural world, and has nothing to say, one way or another, about the supernatural. (People like Dawkins who claim otherwise are going out of bounds.) Evolution only addresses the stunning diversity of life-- nature produces mutations and then natural selection kicks in. But in ID, the designer is responsible for some of the changes that arise, right? -KarenKaren
February 1, 2006
February
02
Feb
1
01
2006
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Hi Karen, Originally, you asked about where animals come from, and I am not sure if you meant species diversification, or the origin of life. Because if you meant origin of life, then Darwinists like to wash their hands of it, while of course assuming it occured. That way they can continue to invest in it, without having to take responsibility for its lack of advancement. I just point this out because Darwinists frequently claim that the initial origin of life is a separate sphere from its subsequent evolution. It isn't really separate though, because Darwinists claim that purely material forces were sufficient to produce the universe and all life, and that anything outside of that isn't even science and cannot be entertained. So they are definitely dependent upon spontaneous generation of life. I hope Harvard's new policy helps them out. I'm not going to hold my breath. ID is not really a big theory of life. It is rather a sea change; a thought redirection. As I said, neoDarwinian evolution proposes that random mutations plus survival of the fittest together has produced the genomes of some 100 million species. It also pretty openly supports scientific materialism, or materialstic reductionism, which means that matter is all there is. NeoDarwinism likewise proposes that all species have changed very gradually into one another by the slow accumulation of mutations. There are many arguments against that theory, such as that evidence for gradual change of characteristics in animals is not supported by the fossil record. ID uses the same data as neoDarwinism to come to a different conclusion, namely that a material universe could not have spontaneously given rise to life unaided by any directing intelligence. The two strongest arguments in favor of that conclusion is the huge amount of detailed, complex information found in the DNA and the very complex machinery found in cells. Most ID people believe that some form of slow unfolding of life forms occurred. A lot of them believe in common descent. Some believe that random mutations do account for some or a lot of life's progress, but I don't. So, in a nutshell, the evolution of life appears to be true, but Darwin's explanation as to how it occured appears not to be true, or adequate. I think what ID people see ID as an alternative to, is the dominance, even tyranny, of materialist philosophy in science. Note the word 'philosophy.'avocationist
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Hi Karen, ID and evolution are quite compatible. ID proponents hold that intelligent causation is a valid (and in some cases necessary) explanatory principle for natural phenomena. In other words, there are things evolution can't explain, and at least some of these things are best explained as being the result of intelligent agency. Neo-Darwinian evolution (aka modern evolutionary synthesis)is simply Darwin's theory of evolution which has been modified by the modern understanding of genetics.crandaddy
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Avocationist, You mean ID is NOT an alternative to evolution? What is the difference between evolution and neoDarwinian evolution? -KarenKaren
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
Who said it was an alternative to evolution? It is an alternataive to neoDarwinian evolution, which states that random mutations plus natural selection was sufficient to create all the species. ID is an inference, that nature shows evidence of intelligent input.avocationist
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Karen, Let me make sure I understand. In your view, evolution explains where animals come from? I think I may see why you are having difficulty. I need a little information to make sure I understand. Could you please tell me your understanding of evolution's explanation for the first animal? Actually, let me move the question a little further back if I may. What is evolution's explanation for the rise of the first collection of atoms that could be characterized as "living"? Also what "survival advantage" did they have and by what mechanism did they reproduce? And, what was their energy source? Your understanding of Evolution's answers to these questions will help me understand your difficulty in grasping the theory of Intelligent Design. Thanks.Red Reader
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Red Reader, If ID theory doesn't address the question of where animals come from, how can it possibly be an alternative to evolution? -KarenKaren
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
avocationist. My Manifesto is now somewhat dated so I recommend after you have finished and digested it that you go to "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis." which is available on the web without the single figure. The published version in Rivista di Biologia 2005 does have the figure. Thanks for your interest. SkoalJohn Davison
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Oh, I am so excited! I have been reading around the site so now I have a better idea where all this is coming from -- so much so that I thought maybe I would see if Mr. Davison has heard of this strange paper I found on the net last summer and liked it so much I printed it up as I was about to depart to the insect heaven of West Virginia to read at my leisure -- and look at who the author is! It's called, An Evolutionary Manifesto. This calls for a gin and tonic. Cheers.avocationist
January 31, 2006
January
01
Jan
31
31
2006
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
Dave, In every single organism that we’ve observed, where its origin can be determined, it came from another organism almost exactly like it that reproduced. Only never qui"te exact. Descent with modification is the only thing we’ve ever observed." I'm a bit confused. In another thread you mentioned saltation. So in some circumstances, there are sudden, planned jumps, right? I don't see anything that prohibits large jumps and it fits a lot of evidence. It's still descent with modification. No one has directly observed saltation in nature so it remains hypothetical. Presumably the possibility can be demonstrated in a laboratory. And John Davison- Where can I find out more about your PEH? This is the theory you published 22 years ago?avocationist
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
The problem with the Dover statement and the Cobb County stickers is that they single out evolution for special criticism, for what the judges determined were primarily religious reasons. Darwinian evolution is singled out because so many people believe it's not correct in some important ways while they have no significant doubts about all the other mainstream theories in science. What's in fact the case is that Christians are being singled out and disenfranchised from political participation due to some chuckleheaded notion that if you think about God when casting your vote, your vote doesn't count. That''s outrageous. Judge Cooper is an incompetent that ought to be impeached. For some humorous variants of the Cobb County sticker, see: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/watchmaker
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
John Davison I am prepared to afirm "organic reproductive continuity" with my parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on back to the first human. We KNOW that people give birth to people. No one has ever observed a whale giving birth to anything but whales, nor birds to any but birds, nor chimpanzees to any but chimpanzees. It is a logical method error to extrapolate beyond the genomic bounds that we now KNOW account for the changes we see from generation to generation. Based on the observation that certain features in the natural world can best be explained by intelligent causes, there are many possibilities. ONE is your PEH. It's an excellent hypothesis. But, adhering strictly to the observable data, there are other *reasonable* hypotheses as well. The only theory unequivocally ruled inadequate is NDE. Do you have a single shred of evidence that there is not an unbroken cell line behind every living thing on the planet today? In every single organism where we know where it came from there is an unbroken cell line. No exceptions. Never once ever has anything been observed appearing from nothing. If you have any evidence to back your assertion that organisms might appear ex nihilo either present it or stop wasting bandwidth with empty claims. It's claims denying the virtually undeniable that gives ID a bad name. -ds Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Karen, ID doesn't "teach" that animals are or are not procreated naturally. ID is based on the extant observation that "certain features in the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause."Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
If IDists say that I am no longer one of them. I never was anyway. To deny organic reproductive continuity is unacceptable and anyone who takes that position has become my mortal intellectual enemy. You may write that down Karen whoever that is and I am sure we will never know, Those that make those sorts of comments rarely are willing to divulge their identity.John Davison
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Red Reader, Again, thank you. Doesn't ID teach or at least imply that animals are NOT always procreated naturally from animal ancestors? No. -dsKaren
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Karen, To my knowledge, ID does not tell us where life forms come from. Nor can it. ID is based on observation of what exists and unlike other theories does NOT presume to know where anything thing in existence came from: only that some "features of the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause." Nor do other theories offer anything more than speculation in this regard (notwithstanding the adamacy of their advocates' vociferous assertions to the contrary.)Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
In Cobb County, the sticker didn’t mention ID or religion. It just said evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be carefully studed and critically considered. Remember that the stickers didn't get sued. The School Board got sued. (By the parents of some of the students.) So don't focus too much on what the stickers said. Look at what the School Board said, and look at why they said it. A lot of it is a matter of public record. Maybe in college they teach that evolution is a fact that can’t be criticised I'm pretty sure they don't teach that in college. The school board was sued to remove the stickers. Is there some part of that you don't understand? -ds chaosengineer
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
John Davison wrote: "Evolution is most certainly not a theory. It is an undeniable reality revealed in great detail by the fossil record and supported by everything we know...." .... Macro-evolution has never been observed. The data we think is evidence of macro-evolution can be explained as Designer Reuse: “Designer Reuse - One of the positive cases for Intelligent Design is the observation of the ways designers act when designing. Intelligent agents often ‘re-use’ functional components that work over and over in different systems.” William Dembski. https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/687 The certainty with which one may repeatedly assert as "undeniable reality" can be EASILY explained as a logical method error called EXTRAPOLATION: “The mechanism by which nature is alleged to have fashioned a single ancestor into both whales and man has never been observed. Indeed, its existence is based on a wild extrapolation from the commonplace observation that within a single species different traits provide a survival advantage in certain circumstances - e.g., black moths fare better vis-a-vis predators against a sooty backdrop and light moths do better in a clean environment. That’s a long way from creating new species.” Jonathan Rosenblum. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361067333&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter In every single organism that we've observed, where its origin can be determined, it came from another organism almost exactly like it that reproduced. Only never quite exact. Descent with modification is the only thing we've ever observed. When things like this happen every single time without fail they're not deemed just theories but laws of nature. To say that this law of nature, that every organism descends from another quite like it, was broken in the past requires extraordinary evidence to support it. You have no extraordinary evidence do you? What evidence DO you have, Red? -ds Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Red Reader, Thanks for your reply, but note that I never mentioned God or religion in my original questions. To my way of thinking design and creation are 2 different things. One can design without being divine, but you do need raw pre-existing raw materials. In the natural world, living things come from ancestors. Does ID theory really tell us where life forms actually come from? No it doesn't. You're quite right. ID tells us that certain complex patterns in nature are best explained by intelligent agency. That's the beginning and end of ID. The rest is details quantifying complexity, determining probabilities, and falsifying explanations based on chance. ds Karen
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Evolution is most certainly not a theory. It is an undeniable reality revealed in great detail by the fossil record and supported by everything we know from molecular biology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, physiology, taxonomy and genetics. To even dream of denying it is unforgivable, inexcusable and in my carefully considered opinion without any merit whatsoever. What has always been lacking is only the MECHANISM by which it was effected. I have offered my hypothesis and all I can say is that after 22 years in the refereed literature it has yet to be even mentioned let alone challenged. Furthermore I can tell you why. It is because the ruling atheist inspired Darwinian evolutionary establishement is afraid to mention either my name or the names of my distinguished sources because they know that if they do, they will unleash a hornets nest that will reduce them to shambles in very short order. As I have said many times before, neither I nor my many sources exist because the Darwinians have decreed that we do not, will not and must not exist. A pox upon them all I say. We most certainly do exist and in the words of Joe Louis the great heavyweight champion: They can run but they can't hide. Ask not for whom the bell tolls . It tolls for the biggest hoax in the history of western civilization. How do like them woody radishes? They make you burp don't they. I hope they give Darwinians ulcers or at least an acid stomach for about a month. Speaking of stomachs and Darwinian homozygous mystics because that is what they all are: "God designed the stomach to vomit up things that were bad for it but He overlooked the human brain." Konrad Adenauer Thank you for your wisdom Konrad. You are always there when I need you. I think I'll have another drink.John Davison
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
"Why is it justifiable to teach whole chapters about evolution in the name of prepping high school children for college but the mere mention of ID to them is verboten?" It's not "the mere mention of ID" that's forbidden. What's forbidden is for a public school teacher to advocate a particular religious dogma, such as Biblical literalism. Unfortunatly some Biblical literalists are trying to hijack the *name* "Intelligent Design" in order to sneak their religion into the public schools...of course this has nothing to do with the *real* Intelligent Design being discussed here. As far as I know, no one has even tried to get it into the public schools. (And I do think that we need a lot more ID research before we try.) Also high school students are minors, which makes a difference. The courts have ruled that minors don't necessarily have the critical thinking skills to tell whether a teacher is endorsing religion as official school policy, or as a personal statement of belief. So endorsement-of-religion issues get looked at a lot more stringently when minors are involved. Finally, the rules for colleges and high schools are different. High school students are required to take science classes, and they aren't allowed to walk out even if the teacher starts evangelizing them. But a college student who doesn't want to take a particular Biology class or a particular Religion class is free to opt-out. (Depending on what degree they're studying for.) In Cobb County, the sticker didn't mention ID or religion. It just said evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be carefully studed and critically considered. Even that was too much for Darwinists. Maybe in college they teach that evolution is a fact that can't be criticised and that's what high schoolers are being prepped for, eh? Yes, I think that must be it. I think I'll add that to the article. -dschaosengineer
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
MJ, looks like I touched a nerve. May I say rants in general aren't all that pretty. Have a nice day.Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Karen wrote: "In pure ID theory, does the designer just draw up a design and leave the actual creation of a new plant or animal to someone else? Or is the designer also the creator?" Karen, I do not presume to speak for anyone else here; neither am I the moderator of the blog. However, that's never stopped me before. ID doesn't identify the designer nor does ID attempt to explain HOW the design was implemented. ID first and foremost an observation of physical characteristics of things in nature--from biological systems to the mathematical constants of the universe. There's a good article on the website of the Discovery Institute titled "What Intelligent Design Is—and Isn’t". The article can be found at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571 Here is more or less the formal definition of ID as described in that article. .... ID is not a deduction from religious dogma or scripture. It’s simply the argument that certain features of the natural world—from miniature machines and digital information found in living cells, to the fine-tuning of physical constants—are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause. .... Intelligent Design theory does not rule out the possibility that God is the designer. That's all it does. There are other possibilities that ID does not rule out. The only idea that ID DOES rule out is the idea expressed in Darwinian evolution that the universe and all of life are the result of freak accident coupled with blind chance, "the Blind Watchmaker" as some evolutionists refer to the (imaginary) process. Glenn J.Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Red Reader: I'll help you out with it: We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6-7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)). Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is based upon an analogy to human design. Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design. (18:116-17, 23:50 (Behe)). Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails. Unlike biological systems, human artifacts do not live and reproduce over time. They are non-replicable, they do not undergo genetic recombination, and they are not driven by natural selection. (1:131-33 (Miller); 23:57-59 (Behe)). For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s abilities, needs, and desires. (D-251 at 176; 1:131-33 (Miller); 23:63 (Behe); 5:55-58 (Pennock)). With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. (38:44-47 (Minnich)). In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe)). It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed.(23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process. (23:50 (Behe);38:59 (Minnich)). As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court, throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID inference: the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. (P-718 at 705). Accordingly, the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller)). ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory. (3:101-02 (Miller)).M J
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Red Reader states Unfortunately, your understanding is incorrect. All indications are that Judge Jones ignored the testimoney of the witnesses you listed. The judgement itself seems to indicate that Judge Jones considered the evidence of Behe, Minnich and Fuller. He was not in a position to consider what Dr's Demsbki and Meyer might have said, as they withdrew from the case.Xavier
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Red Reader: Also, not one of those articles you posted deal with Judge Jones ruling on the positive evidence for design. They all deal with whether Judge Jones had the legal basis to rule on whether ID was science or not.M J
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Red Reader: Are you kidding? Go back and read the judgement again, pages 79-82 (the only pages where the positive evidence for design is discussed.) The judge bases all of his logic on what Minnich and Behe said.M J
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
MJ wrote: "Judge Jones based his understanding of Intelligent Design on the testimony of Behe, Minnich and Fuller. Dembski, Meyer...." Unfortunately, your understanding is incorrect. All indications are that Judge Jones ignored the testimoney of the witnesses you listed. See the following: "Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts" at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_follows_aclu_ignor.html "Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?" https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/738 "The Missing Legal Basis in Kitzmiller" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/but_is_id_science.html "DISSECTING THE DOVER DECISION" URL: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002592/Red Reader
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
In pure ID theory, does the designer just draw up a design and leave the actual creation of a new plant or animal to someone else? Or is the designer also the creator?Karen
January 30, 2006
January
01
Jan
30
30
2006
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply