Now, this question about whether Creationism, Evolution, or Design are true or not.
I'm wondering if evolution, by its definition, is an atheistic belief. Some hold that a scientist can't believe in a designed evolution and be scientific, while others hold that it's still science.
So, main question: Is a person who believes that God formed and guided evolutionary mechanisms--remember not to debate whether the mechanisms truely exist or not--an Evolutionist or a Designer?
By the way, is this the real definition of a ID believer? It popped up somewhere.
Some other person wrote:An IDer is one who insists that a "designer" creating the universe is a scientific concept.
Evolution and Intelligent Design and even creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Evolution is ultimately a study of the mechanics of how live changes over time. It does not, nor can it determine first cause nor necessarily if metaphysical elements are involved.
Methodological Naturalism is the application of Evolutionary Science, extended out into the realm of philosophy that argues that chance, time and the evolutionary process are sufficient to explain the existance of life without the need for a First Cause, Intelligent Designer or God.
The majority of scientific evolutionists are not necessarily methodological naturalists. Many Theists are Theistic Evolutionists, meaning that they believe God used the mechanism of evolution as His means of creation.
Intelligent Design is really a concept in response to Methodogical Naturalism. The concept briefly stated is that if Methodological Naturalism as a philosophy can be promoted as a science, then the argument for Intelligent Design can equally be promoted scientifically on the basis of inference from scientific data.
It is arguable as to how effective that approach will be. It is equally arguable as to how effective scientific methodological naturalism is in terms of the conclusions drawn outside of hard science itself.
Much of the confusion arises from the differing position using the same terms but meaning something different within their system. Both sides seem more interested, in my opinion, in showing the failings of the other positions instead of providing evidence for their own. Theists have been more criticized for this because of the faith elements of their beliefs. Intelligent Design is in part a response to the criticism. It's arguable as to whether that effort is or can be scientific to the level demanded by skeptics, but it is a growing effort and focus that I believe will be good overall both for science which needs skepticism to push it forward, and for theism which needs to be framed in manner more relevant and meaningful to our increasingly technological and scientific society.
I bet that elicits some responses. If I can get both sides angry at me with this, then that might be evidence that I've struck close to the middle.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender