Murray and Churchill: Mere Theistic Evolution

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@BenKissling

Regardless of their answer, that’s an opening to explain how a design inference fits right into their definition of MTE. At that point they would have been forced to either accept ID for real, or reject on the grounds of MN and admit that their definition of MTE includes MN. Nelson went right to their implicit acceptance of MN, which they hid behind the skirts of mainstream evolutionary biology.

Why can’t one accept MTE, accept the possibility of detecting design, but also believe that the design arguments that have been advanced by ID proponents are not convincing?