Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

It should be obvious by some of the quotes and links I posted
that scientific thought doesn't exclude the possibility of a designer.
If you think it does, then it's you who has downgraded science in
your own mind.

Where I have a problem is in the requirement beyond the initial design
for continual or periodic intervention--that, imo, removes the
discussion from the realm of science.

It isn't a requirement.

I have addressed this at some length elsewhere in this thread. If, you
are simply postulating that there was an initial Being "Before Anything"
that set up a set of physical laws and started the wheels in motion and
is now watching, that's one thing. That model is not my understanding
of the whole of ID, however.

Individuals may go beyond it because of the implications but ID
is basically saying that there are features of life and the universe
that are best explained by an intelligent agent rather than chance.

But how did that intelligent agent implement the design is the
problem...