In the meantime, it is important that those people who are already fully convinced of the superiority of the ID paradigm may continue to express their ideas, to reason and discuss things from an ID perspective. The ID point of view is important, precious I would say, and it must be defended.
R J Sawyer at # 106:
I think I have already answered at # 107 (even if I had not yet read your new comment).
One point: there is absolutely no doubt that “ID concepts must be further researched”. I am absolutely convinced of that.
ID is at present only a paradigm. Its specific application to biology is still very limited, and the reason for that is very simple: resources are extremely limited.
Even the theoretical approach is still in its starting steps: there is still much work to do.
That’s why I always say that ID is a paradigm: it is not simply a theory (even if it includes many different theoretical approaches), and it is not a movement (even if of course there are some organizational aspects in the ID field). It is a paradigm, a way of thinking inspired by the recognition of the importance of conscious design in the natural world and of the folly inherent in denying it a priori, as current science does.
But frankly, I don’t think that credible suggestions about how to improve ID thinking will come form peer review. It will come from ID itself, or simply from good science out there.
In the end, only one thing will promote the ID paradigm as time goes by: the fact that it is true.