Welcome to the fray!
Yet, society believes we are the most intelligent beings in the universe.
Sorry, that's nonsense. Certainly scientists don't hold such a belief. What the less well-educated believe is of little importance. Any proposition, no matter how silly, will find a significance percentage of adherents. It means nothing.
Whatever the case one wants to believe, this is for me, a huge point for I.D. Because of the fact that it seems to be alot more complicated than evolution can explain, it leads me to believe that it was designed.
Actually, evolution can explain a lot more than creationists are willing to accept. 1) Creationists almost always have a worldview centered around a creator. 2) There is no empirical evidence for any supernatural entities. 3) ID and design are based on a religious worldview, not on scientific data. 4) There are some 4,300 world religions with tens of thousands of different sects or subdivisions; their beliefs are often mutually-exclusive and internally-inconsistent, and are always based on something other than empirical evidence (otherwise there would be but one religion).
I say it was God, although this may upset some of the posters who have replied here, I would gladly hear of another theory if it can even come close to explaining such a design.
So far the ID proponents have proposed nothing that has withstood the test of "design." Design itself, as they describe it, is entirely subjective, with no clearly defined criteria. This is certainly not science. This is religious dogma seeking to take on the trappings of science without adhering to the scientific method or providing any empirical evidence. (And ID was "designed" after the
Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which banned creation "science" from the schools--an inauspicious beginning which has not really fooled anyone.)
But keep in mind that evolution would have to add or take away attributes slowly over time, which this structure would fail to propel the organism unless it has all of its pieces. The closest structure to this has five less pieces, and it is an injection pump to inject poison into the cells of its host.
to see the image, goggle image search flagellar motor.
But this gradual addition or subtraction is just what the theory of evolution proposes! The creationist's canard of a lizard giving birth to a bird is nonsense--change actually occurs in tiny increments. This is what creationists have termed micro-evolution. But creationists deny that such change can just keep on going, in response to changing environmental conditions, to add up to macro-evolution. Unfortunately, creationists have yet to provide a mechanism to show how and why that micro-evolution must stop at some point lest it become macro-evolution. The reason seems to be they base their belief on the biblical concept of "kinds," which cannot change, rather than on empirical evidence which clearly shows such change actually occurs.
Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has not withstood the test of scientific evidence. His major examples have all been refuted. That's not a very good start for ID, now, is it?
Now you'll probably disagree with my post. Fine. Provide evidence to show that my points are inaccurate and your's are accurate.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2