That is not the ID argument.
It may not be *yours*, but there are plenty of ID arguments that *do* boil down to some variation on that.
The ID argument is essentially that chaos doesn't order itself. If you find order that is not directly related to natural law and statistically impossible from chance, then it is a reasonable inference to say that an intelligence was involved in its order.
And that version of the argument, as stated, is simply wrong. Chaos *does* order itself. Furthermore, "not directly related to natural law" is impossibly vague and amgibuous. "Statistically impossible by chance" requires complete knowledge (i.e. omniscience) to determine in any sufficiently complex system. And even granting you all *that*, it is not a "reasonable inference" to say that "an intelligence was involved", because evidence *against* any one explanation (e.g. "occurring by chance") is *not* evidence *for* any other explanation "by default".
Rather than repeat myself, here's an excerpt of an earlier post where I had to explain the same fallacy to someone:
If additional facts are compiled they MAY either prove or disprove spontaneous generation, and if they prove spontaneous generation is not possible, then QED a Creator must exist.WRONG!
The IDers keep making this fallacy over and over again, and never seem to grasp their error no matter how many times it has been explained to them.
They keep laboring under the mistaken impression that evidence *against* evolution -- or in this case against "spontaneous generation" -- is somehow evidence *for* a conscious designer.
False. Wrong. Negatory.
That's not how epistemology works.
The short explanation for why is that it's the fallacy of the false dichotomy to think that there are only two possible explanations: 1. spontaneous generation, 2. a designer, and that if either one is shown false, then the other one "must" be true by default. Nope.
They could *both* be wrong.
I can think of at least half a dozen alternative hypotheses for where life might have come from. It's hardly like "a designer" is the only possible explanation left if "spontaneous generation" were somehow to be ruled out.
"QED" my butt... Go back to whomever taught you how to construct a proof, and demand a refund.
Evidence *against* another hypothesis is not evidence *for* a creator. Period. The only thing that would count as evidence for a creator is, dumroll please, actual evidence *for* a creator. You know, results which are characteristically consistent with the predictions made by the creator hypothesis, and which distinguish it from the alternatives. Got any?
For further insights on this point, see Distinguishing rationalization from logic and associated links.
Let's look at DNA, specifically. DNA is a symbolic codal system.
Admit it, you just made that up. "Symbolic codal system" is a term that appears *NOWHERE* on the entire internet, including anywhere in all of the 12-million-plus technical papers cataloged by PubMed and other technical databases.
It has mechanisms for relaying messages which are transcribed, decoded, and then implemented by a reading machinery. Is there ANY OTHER EXAMPLE of a symbolic codal system that was not created by an intelligence? Can you think of even ONE?
Not offhand, no. Did you imagine that this somehow disproves the DNA case? It doesn't.
And you're mistaking the analogies that are used to help people understand DNA, with the actual DNA itself. DNA is not "symbolic". It does not contain "symbols". DNA is a molecule, with mass, chemical properties, etc. DNA is not a text, nor is it a blueprint, nor a recipe, nor computer code. It does not send "messages" that have a "meaning" beyond their physical arrangement. ribosomes do not "read" DNA or RNA. These are all helpful metaphors, but do not mistake the metaphor for the reality.
"Admit it, you just made that up. "Symbolic codal system" is a term that appears *NOWHERE* on the entire internet, including anywhere in all of the 12-million-plus technical papers cataloged by PubMed and other technical databases."
So what? Is it codal? Yes, the DNA is a message for the rest of the cell in a coded system. Is it symbolic? Yes, the DNA represents something that isn't directly there -- the protein.
"Chaos *does* order itself."
Please provide examples.
"evidence *against* any one explanation (e.g. "occurring by chance") is *not* evidence *for* any other explanation "by default"."
Actually it is when all of the explanations form a complete set (I forget what the philosophical term for this is -- set theoretic maybe?). The ID argument is that law, chance, and agency form all of the possibilities for causation. By proving that law and chance are not involved, you then leave only agency. If you know of another type of causation please let me know.
"Not offhand, no. Did you imagine that this somehow disproves the DNA case? It doesn't."
Is it 100% proof? No. However, it does move the burden of proof to the evolutionist. Since we know of only one way coded systems come into existence (development by designers) then when we find a coded system, the burden of proof is on the people who say it wasn't coded by designers to show how it was formed.
Exactly so. Ilya Prigogene got a Nobel in the late 70s for investigating the mathematics of how chaotic systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium spawn what looks like organization and complexity. The Earth, sitting in the outflow of energy from the Sun to the cold vacuum of space, is a fine example of such.