Is my rock designed?

IMHO that isn't the right question to ask. The question should be either:1/ is the process that allowed this rock to form designed or not or,2/ more philosophically, is the process that allowed me to develop so that I perceive the rock in that form designed or not.I have no problem with ID when it is a philosophical understanding of first cause, but I do have a problem when it is used as an argument against science.

Don't we know how a rock is formed? We know what the contituent parts are, how they combine etc. How then do we apply that technigue to understand why anything that we perceive exists?I think that something you're getting at here has gone over my head. (It's crowded up there. )

I posted on this thread simply because I have a problem with the term "Intelligent Design". Whe I first heard the term I assumed it would be something that I would adhere to. The I find out it is really a termed coined to try and achieve a political end, and the term has been twisted into meaning somethig that is different than the one would logically assume.My view is that evolution has the appearance of ID, and you would logically think that there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. It seems though that the political movement believes that ID argues against evolution and so once again a pefectly useful term is corrupted. (The same can be said for the term creationism. )