Why Mung is an ID supporter

In the tradition of offering threads to our visitors from Uncommon Descent (Gil Dodgen, Upright BiPed, gpuccio and others), I’m creating a thread in which Mung can explain why he is an ID supporter.

Mung continually complains that we misrepresent ID at TSZ.  Here’s his chance to set the record straight, to tell us what ID really is, and to explain why he thinks the case for ID is strong.

Take it away, Mung.

(Thanks to OMTWO for the suggestion.)

53 thoughts on “Why Mung is an ID supporter

  1. Mung:

    If you agree that there can be scientific evidence for ID then you also do not belong here at TSZ. It is the stated position of this blog that ID is not science.

    No, Mung, it is not. The only “stated position” of “this blog” is that we come here prepared to consider that we may be mistaken – in other words that we do not come irredeemably attached to any position.

    Looks like I have a bit of sorting out to do after my long absence….

  2. Let me also clarify that I would be the last person to rule out “intelligent” or “intentional” design as a causal factor in any science. My field is precisely that – investigating the nature of intentional/volitional causation.

    And I quite like my job.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.