Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

quote:

---

This absence of historical or experimental confirmation is presumably what Gould had in mind when he wrote that "These tales, in the just-so tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything." So is this science?

---

You sure this is Gould? This sounds more like Phillip E. Johnson, since his entire book "Darwin on Trial" centered around this point.Yes, a good deal of evolution involves the crafting of hypothetical situations, especially in the step-by-step construction of transitional forms. And this is exactly what good science does!Remember that much of evolutionary biology is a lot like forensic or historical science... you study phenomena as they are now, then extrapolate backwards to reconstruct what happened before. Forensic scientists, for example, know how blood spatters in different situations and what kind of marks knives leave when they enter and exit a body, and as a result with enough data they can reconstruct a crime scene with stunning accuracy.Evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, study how organs like wings and ears and the like work across many different species, and as a result can construct coherent maps of how organs must've transitioned.Evolutionary biology is therefore based on just as much empirical evidence (if not more, given how many different species they study) as history or forensics... it's much more than a "just-so story" as Johnson likes to claim.

quote:

---

Well Percy I'm sorry that you were not impressed by the logic of the argument for specified complexity because I was. I suppose since evolutionists do seem by and large to support 'the theory of no design' even when it looks like design, it is to be expected.

​

The problem is again in the philosophy of the evolutionist - it can't be designed because there is no designer so even when it looks like design by reason of its intricate organization, we call it 'designoid' or 'apparent design' as if you know for sure that something that truelly looks like design truelly can't have been designed.

​

In the Bible it is called 'willful blindness' -we can't see it because we don't want to.

---

Beretta, let me give you an example.A while ago, astrophysicists discovered a very orderly, very complex string of data coming from space, and one of the initial reactions was "Oh crap! We might've just discovered intelligent alien life out there!" These were extremely ordered radio pulses, and after the initial excitement died down scientists started studying the phenomenon.Turns out it wasn't aliens at all, but instead was the radio pulse of a rapidly-spinning astral body... and thus, neutron stars and pulsars were discovered. Something looked designed, but after the real research was done that dug past the surface, it turns out there was no design at all.The lesson is that plenty of things look complex, intricate, and orderly... snowflakes, pulsar emissions, the "Face on Mars," etc. However, these are all perfectly natural phenomena when you actually do the science.There is no "philosophy of evolutionists" that demands we exclude design from science. Quite the contrary. Plenty of scientific fields focus on the quest to find "design" in observed phenomena. Prime examples would be forensics, archaeology, or even the SETI project all want to find design. Science is perfectly open to the idea of design, but there has to be genuine, solid evidence for it, and ID proponents simply haven't provided this evidence at all, and instead spend all their time raging on about how closed-minded biologists are.