Mike Marlow wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

OK, I'll try again--paraphrase the view of the ID'ers on what the role
of THE "I" in ID is playing in the development of speicies since the
beginning as observed by a presumed impartial observer---I'm trying to
find out that role and was assuming your view would be the view of the
movement and could explain it in your own words.


ID isn't a movement, it's a belief. It's exactly what it says...

The former I'll agree, certainly. The latter is hard to swallow as
"exactly" owing to...

Intelligent Design. There are groups who believe God's hand is still on
every aspect of life on earth and there are (probably more) groups that are
content to accept the notion of creation at God's hand. Both are ID
believers. Neither can be said to represent "the movement".

....the above.

IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?

Oh, besides things like a soul, a spiritual realm, life after death and the
likes,...no.

Precisely my point that under those guidelines it has nothing to do w/
science and rightly belongs as a basis of a philosophy. Which is not
what the proponents in such places as the KS BOE and in GA are
advocating....