Show me how. If there are plenty of ways, you should be able to tell us about one of them, right?
"Show me how. If there are plenty of ways, you should be able to tell us about one of them, right?"
Glad you asked. I assume you think THAT YOU CAN THINK. Therefore you must allow the case that there are other entities in the universe that can think. Am I correct? (or are you a soliton?)
Given that other thinking entities exist, you cannot therefore exclude the possibility that higher entities exist, perhaps even on a cosmic scale. Voila, you are now at least an agnostic.
Regarding evolution, AND/VS intelligent design, I would prefer to think of it as intelligent evolution. If there can be larger (universal) thinking entities, you cannot exclude the possibility that such entities guide the evolution of organisms. Preposterous you say? What if we simply reword the laws of physics as "God's thoughts on how physics should work". Science and the devine would therefore be congruent, and even bare assed evolution would be a subset of the class of all possible sets of intelligent design. But I am more of the opinion of Rene Thom or D'Arcy (?I forget), that there are attractors and gradients that define how things evolve. Those natural gradients may be indistinguishable from intelligent design. But in any event, no one is stopping anyone from making logical hypoteses about these situations and testing them.
As a scientist, are you saying that intelligent design, as a theory, cannot be tested by scientists and scientific logic? If so, you are admitting that reductionism cannot even reduce the intelligent design question to a rational answer.
That is, dismiss intelligent design at your own mental risk. I could add more, but outta time.