Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

Smart robots! Fortunately robots don't do anything by accident, they only do what they're programmed to do.Unanticipated consequences, however serendipitous, is a mark of a bad designer.Edited by LucyTheApe, : GrammarEdited by LucyTheApe, : Typo

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

But these are special robots.You see, that's the thing - in lieu of any evidence I can argue for just about anything and you can't provide any counter-evidence. This is why ID isn't true by default. Without any positive evidence there could be other possibilities.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Lucy,To eleborate a bit on Rick's comments, it could litterally be anything. You think of it, it could've happened.This is the problem when speculating about things that have no evidence, anything's possible.

Hi docukaeru Well compared to the time that unicellular forms apparently hung around unchanged -very explosive -work it out compared to how many unique and complex forms there are, it was a fraction of the time one would expect for such diversity by mutation and selection.
We would expect everything diverse to appear complex and suddenly which is why it works far better for ID then it does for gradualism. It would also fulfil a prediction that we wouldn’t find hundreds or thousands of gradual steps leading up to the forms found.

According to what ID model?Picking at the ToE won't get you any closer to providing positive evidence for ID, but showing us your ID model will.

Hi Granny, Well we know that it is generally true which is why PE was produced as an explanation. PE would explain it, I suppose, though like you, I’m not a fan of that sort of forced explanation.
I wouldn’t really put it down to a limited fossil record, it occurs in a similar fashion no matter how many fossils are found over the years.
Though it may not necessarily be the automatic default explanation, it is nonetheless what we would expect and so would fulfil a prediction of ID’s and I think that that is the point. It is a point both against gradualistic evolution and for sudden appearance of created biological creatures.

You may think so, I disagree. It's not something you should be taking for granted. Are you kidding? ID is the most perfect exemplar of an explanation forced onto the facts! Again, I disagree, but this isn't really the point. You're still concentrating too much on attacking evolution. Prediction? What prediction? Attempting to explain what we already know (or think we know) about the fossil record is not making a prediction. A prediction has to be made about a future observation, otherwise it's not a prediction, now is it...Tell me, what predictions has ID made, on a par with the tiktaalik example I gave above, that have subsequently been confirmed? I'm sorry Beretta, but you're still not getting it. Neither of those arguments is positive evidence for ID. Sudden appearance of biological forms within the fossil record could have any number of explanations; punctuated equilibrium, some sort of hopeful monster theory, imperfect fossilisation (the most likely actual explanation), the devil put the fossils there, God put them there for a laugh, or, maybe, ID.Sorry, but still no cigar.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello Lucy, Well I couldn't have said it better. In fact everything that evolutionists do seems to be done to disprove creation just as much as creationists try to disprove evolution. Why? Evidence against the one IS evidence for the other in a general sense. Personally I don't think there are any other valid theories worth looking at. We were created/we were not created. God created everything/nothing created everything
...what else is there?
You just have to consider that for a little while and apart from the obvious absurdities, that is all there is.

Absurdities? What you mean like believing that a big magic man who lives in the sky made everything that exists, in 6 days, despite despite an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence from a multitude of different scientific disciplines?Trust me, no matter how absurd you find alternative explanations (such as RickJB's robot example), it's no more absurd than I find your Biblical explanation.As it goes though, personal incredulity isn't much of an argument against something. We reject theories like the robot one, not because they sound outrageous, but because they lack evidence. Why do you imagine that creationism ever fell from favour as the pre-eminent explanation for life on Earth? Because it was criticised to the point of collapse, at which point Darwinism took over by default? Of course not! Darwinism took over because it had positive evidence that better explained the facts. It made predictions which have been verified again and again over the last century.That is what ID needs to do if it is ever to be taken seriously.

---

Mutate and Survive

No. Even if you demonstrate evolution to be wrong then there could be other ways that, as you put it, "nothing created everything". Without any positive evidence of any sort of creator how can you truly know what is absurd and what isn't?

Eight thousand othere dieties, sprites, and leprechauns besides your favorite one (or is that three??) might have been the ones doing that creating.It's not a dichotomy.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

How many times do we have to tell you.Anything at all, that's what else is there. Literally, it could've been anything, a car driving in the street, this pc I'm typing on, and I could go on and on. I could make up a story about all these things and how they created Life, the Universe and Everything. With no evidence to back it up, I'm free to say whatever I damn well feel like saying.Is it true? It might be true, as long as Evolution is false. At least that's the point you're trying to make here.So you see, even if Evolution's not true, this does not mean by default ID is. Like many have said so many times before, the possibilities are endless. How do we know which possibility to go for? For that we look at the POSITIVE evidence FOR that position, and when it holds up, that's the one we go with.Hope this helps

False."Evolutionists" do not do their research with creation in mind. The sciences which deal with the theory of evolution rely on evidence, and devise theories to explain that evidence.There is no scientific evidence for the supernatural; that's why they refer to religion as a belief--it does not rely on evidence.In my six years of graduate school, with half of it spent studying evolution and related fields, the subject of creation never came up. This puts the lie to your statement above.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No. The magic wand wielding mathematical unicorn created all that there is. She did this in such a manner as to be entertained by humans chasing their tails trying to work out how it was all done and maliciously misleads us with false clues.All of the evidence you claim for ID is equally consistent with this theory.
Yes the magic unicorn theory is ridiculous. But so is ID.

Not a single verifiable prediction

Not a single discovery

​

Both ID and the magic unicorn theory share these things in common. Seriously what else needs to be said about ID to discredit it?

That's a bit of a misrepresentation. Unicellular forms did not hang around for billions of years unchanged. They diversified into thousands of unique life forms. One should not overlook the variety among unicellular forms. They are as diverse, if not more diverse than complex life forms.