When people like Francis Collins are pushed to logical conclusions, they make what we call a small i small d statement. They say that the universe demonstrates features indicating that life was the intended consequence of it’s creation, its intrinsic design.

What most theistic evolutionists reject is that we may infer design from any specific biological entity that exists today. They see “evolution” by apparently unguided or random processes being capable of producing biological complexity without any specific input from a designer.

Those in ID see this (Blind Watchmaker Evolution) as unsubstanciated wishful thinking and counter to almost all physical observations.

At the end of the day, Dawkins et al brand Francis Collins and most TEs as “creationists” along with IDers and YECs.

What about the deist and theist biologists that reject ID? –Bob

It means they don’t understand ID.

OK, but presumably you would say that the atheists and agnostics are also wrong. My point was – why were you (or rather apollo230) making the dividing line between ID and evolution the same as the one between belief and un-belief? I thought ID wasn’t related to religion.

Bob

It means they don’t understand ID.

“I do not want to denigrate the reverse-engineering that has been done by legions of agnostic & atheist researchers – with fruitful results. This class of researchers have clearly made numerous scientific contributions without assuming design.”

I would argue that reverse-engineering assumes engineering and engineering infers design. They assume design even if they do not even know they are assuming it.

What about the deist and theist biologists that reject ID?

They only reject the strawman “ID Creationism” (scientific creationism in a cheap tuxedo) that certain despicable and intellectually dishonest ID bashers have made of it.

http://telicthoughts.com/dna-p.....ment-61258

Would a brigade of ID biologists progress faster on research than a similar number of agnostics/atheists (in regards to design)?

What about the deist and theist biologists that reject ID?

Bob

if evolution is still going on, this Architect must still be alive and busy, thus keeping positive detection a possibility.

That assumes a “tinkering Designer” scenario. Obviously that is a live possibility but ID doesn’t rely on it…never mind that that is DesignER Detection and not merely Design Detection, which is the focus of ID as of now.