[[Not being able to completely model a physical process, such as a hurricane or earthquake, does not suggest that fairies are in charge of thes phenomena.]]
Noone is suggestingh such a simplified rediculous notion JS- Design has FAR more evidence to support it than does faries- your analogy isn’t relevent to this discussion
[[Your argument boils down to saying anything we do not fully understand must have a supernatural explanation.]]
Not at all- My argument boils down to the scientifically legitimate conclusion that the evidence of Design at trillions of levels, and hte complexities observed and understood in systems shows the very scientifically plausibility that a designer was needed- just as ANY other forensic scientist validly concludes when faced with design on the grand scale as seen in nature. Throwing out the plausibility of htere being a designer is practicing subjective a priori science- NOT objective science. When htere is enough evidence for intelligence, then it is simply dogma to insist that intellgience could not possibly have been the cause.
Intelligent lacks any theory of who done it or how or when or where or why. It has exactly zero attributes it can assign to the designer -- no capabilities, no limitations, no motives, no processes, no observed instances.
Intelligent Design says exactly nothing about where intermediate fossils should be found, or where we should look. It is entirely incapable of suggesting a dig like the one that found Tiktaalik. It has nothing to say about which animals would make good subjects for the development of drugs vaccines. It has nothing to say on the subject of antibiotic resistance.
These shortcomings are not something I dreamed up. they are admitted by Phillip Johnson, a founder of the Discovery Institute.