Why not adopt the more plausible explanation for various phenomena? Would the discovery of canals on Mars be better explained as the work of intelligence, or natural formation? Most alleged evidence for evolution is ambiguous, like the seven archaeopteryx fossils. Is the archaeopteryx a "missing link," or simply an extinct species?
Rather, you've got to show the specifics of where the current theory is incorrect; and after that, you've got to provide the scientific basis for why design is a better explanation.
Why can't we search for the most plausible explanation given our current state of scientific knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena? Why should evolutionary theory be the default explanation of the origin of species?
IDers simply postulate design as an explanation for apparent design. Well yes -- but on what basis would you objectively demonstrate that?
On what basis would the discovery of a spoon on Mars objectively demonstrate the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence? It's a matter of probability, not certainty.
What criteria could separate between "designed" and "naturalistic" phenomena?
How do you know that a Dunkin Donuts has been designed and that a rainstorm is a natural phenomenon? We recognize the work of an intelligent agent when we observe a thing that was built to serve a purpose, and which could not have arisen by the action of natural forces alone. No one would argue that a Dunkin Donuts is the work of intelligent design. So why, when we observe design of staggering complexity, like the human body, something infinitely more complex than a Dunkin Donuts, do we assume that it arose by the action of natural forces alone?
It would be hard enough to overcome "science's" existing animosity to ID, even with those criteria. Without them, ID doesn't stand a chance.
I'm of the opposite view. Intellectual revolutions begin with philosophers whose ideas are later adopted by academics and, in turn, students, eventually becoming common knowledge many decades later. The philosophical turning point came in the form of two books, Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and Philip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, 20 and 10 years ago, respectively. What remains now is for these ideas to spread through academia, as is now beginning to happen. It's hard to say exactly when ID theory will become common knowledge, since most people reject evolutionary theory already.
No one would argue that a Dunkin Donuts is the work of intelligent design.
Dunkin Donuts managers everywhere are hoping you intended to include the word 'not' somewhere in this sentence. They may not speak for their customers, however.
No one would argue that a Dunkin Donuts is [not] the work of intelligent design. So why, when we observe design of staggering complexity, like the human body, something infinitely more complex than a Dunkin Donuts, do we assume that it arose by the action of natural forces alone?
You seem to be presuming here that the operation of intelligence is a supernatural force. A Dunkin Donuts is the work of a human intelligence, but that fact alone doesn't imply that human intelligence is supernatural (or 'non-natural' in any other sense). So in order to reach the conclusion you're suggesting, you need the additional premise that intelligence is (or ca be) supernatural.
If there's evidence of this already, why do you need ID? Wouldn't the existence of human intelligence already be the proof you want?
It isn't. For 200 years prior to Darwin, ID was the default explanation.
Darwinism was resisted by science for 80 years, until 1940, until all the alternative explanations failed for one reason or another.
Among the alternatives studied during these 80 years were Lamarkianism, saltation, finalism. Efforts were made to detect any evidence of non-randomness in mutation.
Don't keep repeating the lie that Darwinism was cooked up to destroy religion and was accepted by science without a fight. Even as we speak there are serious disputes over the mechanisms of variation.