This is continued from a different thread on what it means to be human.
Hopefully your question can spark a well-needed conversation.
I’m wondering if @swamidass and @sygarte and @Perry_Marshall would agree with me, that one of the biggest separations between ID and organizations like Peaceful Science and BioLogos is that many times, ID equates evolution WITH materialism. By evolution, I mean the philosophically neutral notion of descent with modification which may or may not include mutations that are random with respect to fitness and which may or may not include a natural explanation for the origin of life. By materialism, I mean the belief that the physical world is all that exists and that the universe is NOT teleological in any Aristotelian or Platonic sense.
One meaning is scientific, the other is philosophical.
I’ve seen posts by @NLENTS showing that Behe seems to equate evolution and materialism in his new book.
I think this is the main problem with ID and sets up an unecessary dichotomy.
Do you see a difference between evolution as portrayed in the most up-to-date peer reviewed journals and materialism? If you do, then there’s a lot we could agree on.