[TOWER]

ID arrives at the classical "Argument From Design" position from two basic starting points. One is that application of the commonly accepted principles of detecting design used in disciplines mentioned in the article. Those principles are applied to nature to infer the presence of design. The second approach is the use of probability analysis and modeling to postulate the extreme unlikelihood of the universe as we know it coming about by chance. This, of course, is a gross oversimplification, but it sums up the major argument.

Ultimately though, ID has it backwards and paints itself into a corner. If everything is "too complex" and/or "too improbable" to have occured naturally and therefore must have been designed, then the designer itself (whatever it is) must have also been designed. Thus ID solves nothing.

[rob777]

Ultimately though, ID has it backwards and paints itself into a corner. If everything is "too complex" and/or "too improbable" to have occured naturally and therefore must have been designed, then the designer itself (whatever it is) must have also been designed. Thus ID solves nothing.





ID does not presume to draw conclusions about the nature or origin of the designer, it merely states that the universe exhibits the presence of design. (We can logically assume that the Great Pyramids are the product of design without knowing anything about the designer) Such questions are the domain of religion and philosophy.