Abstract
Seen as natural theology rather than science, 'intelligent design' (ID) is not incompatible with a 'naturalistic' approach to biology proposed earlier (cf. notes 1, 2 below). This paper develops ideas based on this understanding, emphasizing points of mutual agreement and some unresolved differences between the two perspectives. In particular, (1) negative critiques of mechanistic biological origins theories by ID proponents have scientific merit, needing serious consideration by opponents; (2) no a priori reason exists to favor a mechanistic natural philosophy of ultimate origins over other options (such as ID); and (3) more open dialogue can be mutually constructive for each side, if philosophically polarized positions do not make it impossible. However, (4) if ID is an idea with scientific implications, proponents need to show how it affects biology as a science (i.e. in 'naturalistic' terms); (5) analogy with the history of physical science suggests a primary focus on origins questions is anomalous and inappropriate for biology at present; and (6) a naturalistic program, focused not on origins per se, but on the distinctive logical organization of biosystems, is directly relevant to scientific understanding.