Quote:Which relies for meaning on the old manicheistic error actually being an error.
Spendi- in your own words you've restated the second of Darwin's concepts. The one where errors don't survive.
To me, a truly enlightened supreme being would create a truly elegant successful (read stable) system that would requires a minimum of tinkering and repair. That, to me, is the inherent weakness of ID in general, it assumes that the creator is a bumbling inventor and that his inventions are so imperfect that they require an active intervention for continued improvement. For to assume that humans are in effect the perfect creation is both erroneous (as per example--to err is human) and arrogant (see erroneous).
Consequently, the assumption of an error prone inventor is an indication of a less than perfect creator. As a creator that is enlightened would let his rules of evolution alone perfect his creations. Now I don't know for sure that Darwin's theory of evolution is fact (that is also true of any scientific theory), but it is far more sophisticated than any of the other proposed hypotheses of evolution that has been proposed (ID, Young Earth, Lamarck, Ben Steinian, etc.), and that (so far) it has met the criteria of observation, confirmation, and Occam's Razor better than any other. Even old Charlie recognized this of his own theory as a great deal of "The Origin of Species" is, in effect, presentations of arguments against his theory.
Therefore; old Charley's rules of evolution are a far better indication of an intelligent creator than that proposed by ID.
Rap