A peculiar feature of debates on evolution in the West, particularly in America, is the glaring fallacy of false dilemma shared by protagonists and antagonists alike: evolution OR creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).
In other words, both the protagonists and antagonists on evolutionism share the wrong assumption that the solution to the problem of explaining the diversity and complexity of forms of life is simply a matter of choice between two mutually exhaustive alternatives: Darwinian theory of evolution OR the Biblical theory of creation out of nothing.
This assumption embodies the fallacy of false dilemma because there is, at least, one other alternative to consider: development by intelligent design. I will call this Developmental Intelligent Design Theory (DIDT). This is the cosmogony of Suddha Sanmargam.
This cosmogony of Suddha Sanmargam differs from the Biblical creationist intelligent design theory in that it holds that the diversity of the material, physical, or organic forms in the cosmos, and indeed the origin of the cosmos itself, is the result of an ongoing process of development by intelligent design, or development governed by intelligent agency, rather than creation ex nihilo or instantaneous creation out of nothing.
The notion that the cosmos is the result of a vast process of development is an entrenched one in Indian cosmogony, e.g., the cosmogony of the Sāṃkhya metaphysical system, or the cosmogony of Śaivasiddhānta (Tamil: சைவ சித்தாந்தம்). Unfortunately, both the protagonists and antagonists in the evolution debates in the West display a deplorable ignorance of Indian cosmogony, and, hence, remain ensconced in their false dilemma of evolution or ex nihilo creation.
How does this developmental intelligent design theory differ from Darwinian evolutionism?
The key difference is that whereas Darwinism accords a central place to randomness in shaping the diversity of the forms of life, developmental intelligent design theory affirms that the diversity of complex forms and structures, not only of life, but of the cosmos itself, is the result of processes of development designed and executed by intelligent agency.
Two questions may arise here: one pertaining to the nature of this intelligent agency governing the processes of development which have produced the diverse complex structures and forms in the cosmos, including those of terrestrial life, and the other pertaining to the modus operandi employed by the intelligent agency and/or intelligent agencies in question.
But these questions or issues are logically independent of the issue of whether recourse to the concept of development by intelligent agency provides the best explanation of the diversity of complex forms and structures of the cosmos, including those of living beings on earth.
Explanation by recourse to the concept of development by intelligent agency or development by intelligent design is not undermined by lack of information on the nature of the intelligent agency or designer(s) at work in this context. Such explanation is also not undermined by any lack of information on the modus operandi of the intelligent agent or intelligent agents in question.
For instance, an explanation of the existence of a supercomputer in terms of intelligent agency or designer(s) is not undermined by lack of information on the personal characteristics of the agents or designers in question. Nor is it undermined by lack of information on their modus operandi.
Hence, the demand that the proponent of developmental intelligent design theory must also specify the nature of the intelligent agency, or agencies, at work in bringing about and governing processes of development which have produced the diversity of complex forms and structures of the cosmos, including life, and their modus operandi, is irrelevant to the task of examining whether recourse to the concept of a process of development governed by intelligent agency provides the best explanation of the complex structures and forms of the cosmos, including those of terrestrial life.
Of course, there are alternative conceptions of intelligent agency, e.g., the notion of a single intelligent agent, the notion of a plurality of intelligent agents, the notion of a plurality of intelligent agents governed and guided by a single intelligent agent, differing conceptions of the moral character of the intelligent agent or agencies, etc., but the issue of adjudication among these different conceptions of intelligent agency is logically independent of the issue of whether the developmental intelligent design theory offers the best explanation of the diverse complex forms and structures of the cosmos.