If we found fossil records of a group of animals who couldn’t possibly survive in the wild (think cows) I think that would be a strong argument for some sort of ID going on. If you don’t like animal husbandry, think genetically modified corn.
I don’t know of any real scientific use of the term intelligent design in any context - but we have to distinguish things that couldn’t happen, like the Sun standing still or the Flood, with things that just didn’t happen.
I haven’t seen ID proponents using animal husbandry and such as reasons for accepting ID, since they really want it to be instantaneous and miraculous, and God with a clipboard and a turkey baster pairing off our remote ancestors probably doesn’t do it for them.
If we found watches mating, and producing watches with slightly different characteristics from theirs, we wouldn’t need a Watchmaker either.
Thats what makes ID inherently unscientific…
There is nothing unscientific about the claim that some alien being used a turkey baster and artificial selection to create Earth’s species millions of years ago (insane maybe, but not unscientific) . IF you can supply ALOT of legitimate falsifiable measurements that demonstrate the physical techniques used by this alein to produce all these millions of species (look at this 4 billion year old turkey baster next to this fossil of a alien). Someone else can repeat your measurements and take further measurements that either support or disprove your hypothesis (no, thats a funny shape rock, and that turkey baster was brought at walmart last week 
) .
ID does not say that. ID says that some inherently super-natural, “unknowable” force created all the diversity speices we see on the earth. No mechanism is proposed (other than some vague super natural force, nudge-nudge wink-wink, coughs god coughs), no amount of measurements could ever disprove this concept.
But what if it’s just a particularly virulent strain of Influenza (sans spider toxin side effects)? How would we be able to differentiate a natural mutation from a man-made one?
Though if I were to put my devil’s advocate hat on I think Fred Hoyle’s “Hurricane in a Junk Yard” quote sums it up most succinctly what is most convincing about ID arguments (Fred Hoyle was a great scientist but his thoughts on evolution were eccentric to say the least, and are often used by IDers):
This is specific reference to the Abiogenesis (the birth of life from non-organic components), rather than evolution, and is a genuinely unsolved bit of science.
Taking OFF my devil’s advocate hat it also sums up what is UNCONVINCING about ID arguments. The fact that science at the time could not explain that, does not mean we should say “Oh a supernatural force put together those components, there you go, job done, nothing more to see here”. This is an inherently UNSCIENTIFIC philosophy. The fact is we are much closer to explain Abiogenesis than we were in Fred Hoyles day, none of those advancements would have been made if we, as a society, has taken that approach.
Well it looks like my question generated more discussion than I thought it would. I appreciate it. I was half asleep when I looked at the ID wikipedia page and somehow failed to see they mention irreducible complexity and the fine tuned universe arguments. I remember arguing against ID way back in a college philosophy class. I argued that fractals and complex chaotic systems can arise from simple inputs, but I lost the paper and can’t remember exactly what I wrote. Anyways, thanks for the discussion.
Behe’s sin was that he didn’t try to falsify his hypothesis hard enough, but he is hardly alone in that - look at the cold fusion guys. His further sin is cashing in on ID among the creationists, while no doubt trying to feel better about himself by writing OpEd columns in the Times saying of course evolution is correct.
As I said, the rest of the IDers are just creationists who figured that ID sounds better. They don’t hint that it’s God, they blare it.
The nontheistic IDers like the Raelians are just the same.
Even back then, there was no thought that the first life was anything that complex, so the argument never made any sense. The creationist side called one of Hoyle’s colleagues in this to testify in the Little Rock case - they did not like what the guy said at all.
In any case, Hoyle is a textbook example of a scientist who held on to a pet idea long after the time it had been discredited, and he was a sad case at the end.
One side note - the first few pages of his novel “Ossian’s Ride” gives the secret to success in grad school. Basically, the hero of the book, a new grad student, actually read the work of a visiting famous scientist ahead of time and prepared a set of questions. Since no one ever did that, all his professors thought he had just come up with them on the spot, and considered him a genius. I think it would still work. Something like this worked for me when I was in grad school.
Well sounds better (possibly) to the supreme court.
When come back, bring watch porn.
Not a very good example since the majority of what is accomplished with DNA in a natural setting does not utilize reverse transcriptase. It has uses in retrotransposition, telomere maintanence, and retroviruses. But definitely an over statement to say DNA can’t do anything useful without it.
But this is really the only tactic of ID proponents; to find something that someone can’t explain, either because they lack fundamental knowledge of the topic or because the topic hasn’t been extensively explored yet. Then they look for the emotional “wow, that’s deep because I can’t explain it” knee jerk response, and carry on to push the agenda.
The entire ID argument is a fundamental logical fallacy, which we can be quite comfortable dismissing. They’ll have to first bring something to the table that actually uses proper logic and reasoning before they can be taken seriously in the first place.
Here is a simulation of the evolution of a clock given “reproducing” gears, etc.
The (or at least, ‘a’) problem with that idea is that it postulates that one can tell the difference between something designed and something undesigned (in the example, the watch is designed and the heath is undesigned), and then goes on to suggest that the entire universe is designed. If everything we see is designed, from whence to we get the ability to distinguish design from lack of design?
Yes. The real argument for intelligent design is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
For the record, Irreducible Complexity is not an argument for ID, but just a hypothetical, biological phenomenon which would arguably be evidence for ID. No actual example of Irreducible Complexity has ever been presented (though efforts have been made, notably by Behe), so it’s kind of useless as an argument. It’s circular anyway - evidence for ID woud be evidence for ID. It’s essentially the same as saying that leprechaun shit would be evidence for leprechauns. Sure it would, but until we actually find some leprechaun shit, it does nothing to further the cause for asserting the existence of leprechauns.
I know it sounds dismissive but the honest, GQ answer is that there really are no arguments for ID other than (at best), warmed over and easily debunkable teleological ones.
That’s pretty hot.
Of course, one of the many flaws in that argument is that the components of a plane are designed to be hooked together intelligently; not thrown together like that. Life on the other hand is full of components that self assemble. In other words, when it comes to life we see the equivalent of whirlwinds assembling planes all the time.
The optic nerve is also hooked up backward in the vertebrate eye. It’s correctly hooked up in the cephalopod eye, though.
So this means that ID does make a scientific prediction: the Intelligent Designer is a squid! Someone alert the press!
I for one welcome our new cephalopod overlords.
I just realized something: Cthulhu is part cephalopod, isn’t he?