[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

[Ian]
I think we're mixing up "the argument from intelligent design" with 
the drivel of IDC "creationists"

[Arlo]
"Intelligent design", at its core, implies an "intelligent designER". No?

[Case]
Ah, the problems a using language! I see problems with the implications of
both terms intelligent implies conscious planning and design likewise
implies a designer. The process itself requires neither. There is also the
problem of metaphor involved in most any description we use of the process. 

Johnson's exposition is filled with anthropomorphic metaphors that make his
meanings clear when understood as such. When taken literally they become
gibberish. Understanding what he says requires the ability to translate his
metaphorical language. 

[Ian]
The argument is that, evolved, emerged design IS intelligent. The 
intelligent design IS the process of emergence, with no master plan 
or master intellect required or implied.

[Arlo]
I'm not sure I understand this. Can you expand a bit?

[Case]
I too have a problem with that one. In a sense the term "intelligent design"
is redundant and either term leads to confusion.