Every notice how those that support the ToE take the time to explain to others about the theory while a significant portion of those that support ID just throw up a few links and insult others?
If I was a shrink I would say that the ID supports don't really know enough about their 'theory' to really support it so they then harass/insult the other side in a effort to silence them.
Not exactly the most adult of behaviors.
Here's a few questions for advocates of intelligent design. (Note 1: We use the abbreviation "ID," but "intelligent design" and "designer" aren't capitalized because ID is alleged to be science, not theology. Note 2: The indented or parenthetical material after each question is based on responses to prior postings of these questions; we're attempting to discourage such inadequate comments.)
1. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID, by default, the only possible explanation?
Please don't respond merely to claim that ID really is a great answer. If that's what you claim, you should explain the scientific reasons why it's so great. Specifically, how can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate (not merely claim) that something could not have evolved naturally?2. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation? Or even a competing explanation?It is unsatisfactory to state your opinion that a natural event is highly improbable. You and I are improbable too, yet we are here, despite the enormous odds against it. ID claims that evolution of various organs is literally not possible. How can that be demonstrated?
Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.3. If the intelligent designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?Please don't respond merely to claim that ID simply is the best answer. If that's what you think, you should explain why it's best.
Follow-up question for those who would claim that a thing with a "purpose" demonstrates design: What distinguishes a design that has "purpose" from something that has no purpose? How does one see "purpose" in a duck, or an ape, or a rock? If everything has a purpose, how is design different from mere existence?4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify ID?Another follow-up question for those who claim that "complexity and specificity" are the answer. First, everything is something specific, so that is no answer at all. As for complexity, is everything the designer designed complex? If not, why not? And if so, then how do we know, in the absence of complexity, that non-complex things are designed?
A rational, coherent, responsive reply should identify something that, if found, would be a contradiction of ID theory (like the proverbial Precambrian rabbit would be for evolution). It's no answer to say that I should make my own flagellum (or whatever) in the lab. Why? Because it could always be said by ID advocates that such results, being designed by humans, are (somehow) confirmation of ID. And it could certainly be claimed that regardless of lab work, ID is still the best answer. We want to learn of something -- anything! -- that would definitely contradict ID.5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the variety of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct? (And no, the Fall doesn't explain it, because ID is supposed to be science, not theology.)6. If complex organisms demand an ID explanation, why doesn't the designer (obviously a complex entity) require an even more intelligent designer who created it, and so on, ad infinitum?
It's no answer to raise the theologian's argument that God is exempt from the normal demands of scientific explanation. Also, it is no answer that the designer's designer is beyond our comprehension. If ID is an idea that belongs in the science classroom, it must submit to scientific discipline.7. The rapidly-growing biotech industry, which is profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, employs thousands of scientists. Why don't they employ "creation scientists" or ID theorists to exploit their unique insights? If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it. (Note: We are asking for scientific work that specifically employs the doctrines of creationism or ID.)