re: the robert camp article. i'm not very familiar with "id" dogma, but what i have seen is remarkably similar to this bit of verbose fluff. camp writes breezily:"It’s well understood that there is no empirical warrant for concluding this world’s biota is the result of purpose"-which is, in fact, his entire point in a nutshell- as an aside in the midst a huge pile of intellectually breezy conjecture which does nothing to prove his point. his next paragraph gives a list of evidence for intent of biological design (like "complexity") again breezily dismissed, without mentioning the word this is all about-purpose. that is, all of these evolutionary developments have, according to evolutionalists themselves, the "purpose" of furthering the genetic success (survival) of that particular combination of genes in its particular environment. purpose is unavoidable if you want to talk about evolution, and design is only an ideological hairsbreadth away. dont' be afraid, o ye seekers of truth. all of this can be contemplated, if you wish, without bringing "god" into the equation. but if you try to deny purpose, you leave "truth" out of the equation, and more's the pity.

The truth being there is no intellectual purpose.