That's not evidence, it's ridicule. And it does nothing to support the claim that there was no design. The evidence that most people use for ID is the orderliness and complexity of the creation around us but scientists seem to consider that unimportant for some reason. Funny, because without it, there would be no science. If everything came into being by chance, where did orderliness come from? How could order come from disorder? Even if the argument that life could have evolved on one planet because statistically, it had to happen somewhere, why is there so much order in this HUGE, almost infinite universe of ours? So on what basis does the scientist claim that there is no design?
But it is a common tactic used by the religious evolution zealots, metmom.
Ridicule without substance, all the while claiming to be intellectually honest and 'scientific.'
It is, IMO, a response of one afraid of the challenge to one's faith.
Same reasons that pertain to the Easter Bunny: there's no physical evidence that such a designer exists.
There is no “claim that there was no design”. That’s just an transparent attempt to try to make someone else disprove your religious based claims or teach them as a science.
I explained to you last night that atheists do not necessarily claim that there is no God. In a similar way evolutionist have no need to disprove Intelligent Design.
As long as ID is just a religiously motivated hypothesis with no significant peer reviewed evidence supporting it, it will be restricted to some kid of social studies class, not science.