I’d like to thank @swamidass for asking why I am an ID proponent. It gave me an opportunity to not only think about it but to also generate a response that may lead to greater mutual understanding and respect.
Because i believe that design is obvious.
That attempts to explain away the appearance of design fail to do so.
The only contender for explaining the appearance of design is Darwinism. If Darwinism is dead, why does it not follow that the only serious contender for explaining the appearance of design in nature is also dead?
This, by the way, is why I find it difficult to jump on the “Darwinism is Dead” bandwagon. It fails to offer an alternative explanation for the appearance of design such as the one that was provided by Darwin’s theory.
There is no appearance of design in nature. More specifically, there is no appearance of design in biology. Contra Darwin. Contra Dawkins. etc. That’s one way to approach it. Who are the proponents of that position?
There is an appearance of design in biology, and neutral evolution, the theory that killed Darwinism, gives an explanation for the appearance of design in biology that can permit one to be “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” That’s another way to approach it. Who are the proponents of that position?
The appearance of design is not illusory, but real. What explains the very real design in nature? If someone has a better alternative than “Intelligent Design” I don’t know what it is.
Now I’ll submit that these may not be the sole factors entering into my position as an ID proponent. But I do think that they are reasons why I am an ID proponent.
Now, given that I have provided what I think is a serious and reasoned response to the questions that @swamidass asked, I would like to ask Joshua why he is not an ID proponent.I welcome him to start another thread if he feels that is appropriate.