“Evolution doesn’t address the origin of life, only what happened afterwards.”
Yes I know that and so does Meyer. I find the argument for intelligent design to be strongest in the explanation of origin of life. If one accepts that (and I don’t totally quite yet), then it’s not much of a stretch to also accept the involvement of some intelligence in the subsequent “evolution” of life.
“I have no “faith” in Darwin. He just got the ball rolling. Evolution really answers the objections.”
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems like you have faith in his theory.
“The case for intelligent design may well be there and is certainly attractive but I don’t yet see it.”
And that’s fine - I’m not 100% there yet myself. But that doesn’t mean you or I have to believe in Darwinian evolution, especially after it is so thoroughly dismantled by Meyer.
So this is where I’m at right now.
1. Macro evolution fails at explaining reality as we currently know it - Meyer makes an excellent case for that.
2. There is some evidence to support micro-evolution
3. Intelligent design seems to be the best explanation of all those currently available for the origin of life and also for its macro evolution
4. We have no idea who or what this “intelligent designer” might be (this is the weakest point of ID. Meyer addresses this by saying that if SETI were to detect what we consider an intelligent signal from outer space, we would reasonably conclude that it came from an intelligent source, though, similarly to ID, we would have no idea who or what sent that signal. So if one accepts the existence of an intelligent entity in the case of SETI, then why not accept an intelligent entity in the case of the DNA coding and cellular machinery associated with it?)
5. So with Darwin’s theory discredited and the evidence for an IDer a bit lacking, we’re in limbo theory-wise and so more thinking and discovery and experimentation are needed to come up with a satisfactory theory. But unlike most evolutionists, I would not kick ID out of consideration, I would want to do more research in the area to prove it or disprove it, and not simply demonize it.
The problem with ID is not its accuracy or non-accuracy.
It is that it is inapplicable. Unless and until you can walk up to some ID entity and say “light this candle/light bulb on command and every single time I command” then ID is a great thought experiment but of zero scientific applicability.
Think about gravity. We know THAT gravity exists. We know its properties. We even know that its properties can be altered by mass.
But we don’t know what CAUSES it or the underlying forces that creates it (thus TToG is less known that TToE). If we did, then we could probably have endless zero cost energy (since Gravity is a force and could be harnessed).
How could ID help us in understanding the TToG? Unless and until the Designer both introduced us and promised to behave the same way every time - FOREVER - we invoke Gravity, ID is just an interesting theological/philosophical concept).