ID states that the complexity of the biosphere (and I would add synergy of systems and aesthetics as well) points to an intelligent designer. The so-called agency could just as likely be surrogates of a higher authority, or savant idiots that have tweaked genomes over eons to see what develops. If design is evident, an interactive god is not, but a highly creative ‘series’ of designers is certainly plausible.
I replied thus:
"ID states that the complexity of the biosphere (and I would add synergy of systems and aesthetics as well) points to an intelligent designer. The so-called agency could just as likely be surrogates of a higher authority, or savant idiots that have tweaked genomes over eons to see what develops. If design is evident, an interactive god is not, but a highly creative ‘series’ of designers is certainly plausible. "
But we’re credulous fools for believing in a scientific theory that has labored forward slowly and patiently (and most importantly) honestly since the 1850’s? You want to trot out NeoPlatonic angels and a Gnostic Yaldaboath as sources for the biotic variety in the world? Are you really expecting a serious answer that doesn’t include scathing ad hominem attacks when you propose religious notions that have been out of date in Christendom since Phillip the Fair eradicated the Albigensian heresy in 1229? Seriously, ID isn’t science and it’s even worse Christianity. Update yourself, good sir. Mr. Bowman, by definition, you are right, none of your notions of intervention can be disproved. And that is why they aren’t science. But seriously, you want us to ask the state and local governments of the United States of America to fund Gnosticism? Truly funny…
So, why is it that ID/Creationism is not only bad or nonexistent science, but also ridiculously silly religion? Answers?
What I usually argue about with Christians and Muslims is that their insistence on the one and only interpretation of their religion, based on limited knowledge, is a very dangerous thing in that if what they say turns out to be incorrect, as has been happening continuously in the past half a millennium, it can discredit the idea of a god. “You say an invisible hand put humans here. We know that’s incorrect. If god did not literally throw humans onto the Earth, does that discredit the idea of your god?”. If they insist that it doesn’t, or change their words, they’re just removing their own credibility. In that way, it’s silly religion. A silly ignorant interpretation discrediting the whole idea.
I’ve ended up with this: An all knowing all powerful creator wouldn’t need to interfere in his creation. If he really is the one and only all powerful all knowing creator, he would be able to mold existence into becoming without having to directly interfere to “fix” inconsistencies (i.e. the absence of living things/humans).
ID in the US is Creationism, pure and simple. For example, after the Supreme Court decreed that teaching Creationism in school violated the wall between Church and State, the Creationist textbooks were re-tooled as ID textbooks, in many cases simply by replacing “Created” with “Intelligently designed”. So, from a practical standpoint in the US, ID is silly religious nuttery.
The concept of Intelligent Design is a) not a testable hypothesis b) has no evidence to support it even circumstantially. Evolution, on the other hand, is a rigorously proven theory. So, basically there is nothing but an argument from incredulity vs. a heavily supported, predictive theory. There is pretty clearly a right and a wrong answer here. So even when taken on good faith, it fails.
With respect to the origin of life, it gets a little murkier. There are three views that can be held there: abiogenesis, panspermia, and God-did-it. By their very nature, all of these involve a certain amount of speculation and are rarely discussed at the Elementary and High School level, rendering their point for this discussion largely moot. Additionally, once life originated, evolution took over, so again, the point is largely moot.
With respect to what we have available, both God-Did-It and Panspermia have the problem of filling gaps as well as inhibiting research. What was provided from space and what did God make? Just the building blocks? A self-replicating molecule? A cell? For a long time, both predicted the cell level, since there were very good models as to how a cell could come about but not how it could replicate. But then molecular evidence pointed to a pre-cellular RNA world, so that point became moot. Futher discoveries keep pushing it further and further back, so like all “God of the gaps” arguments, they eventually collapse into a meaningless singularity.