The standard argument against intelligent design is nothing more than playing with words. It goes ‘That’s “religion”, therefore it’s not “science”, and therefore not a valid alternative to evolution’.
- - - - - -
Intelligent Design IS a a valid alternative to evolution but not in the realm of Science.
A few of the fundamental constraints on the Method of Science include:
1. It must be empirical, i.e. observable.
2. It must be cause and effect, i.e. determinism.
3. It must be natural, i.e. follow the Laws of Physics & Chemistry.
Numbers 1 and 3 rule out Intelligent Design as a scientific artifact since intelligence cannot be observed by experimental means plus it is “supernatural.” No law of science states that e=m(intelligence)squared.
Other philosophies, such as teleology, admit “intelligence” since “purpose” is an aspect of that philosophy, which is the philosophy of religion. I suppose the statement, “Design requires a designer,” is a powerful force if one is comfortable with the idea of a designer. The Christian sees this beauty and asserts that the design that God made is more wonderful than ever.
Having seen the design of science at its peak, medical students assert, “It’s all physiology!” Their observation of the fabulous design of living things moves many to believe that just happened by chance.
There is no evidence to support “theistic evolution.” The evidence needed to support that view is identical to evidence that would support “non-theistic evolution.”
An evolutionist or atheist who claims to have a purpose in life has left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion.
ID arguments are generally all three of those. An example is irreducible complexity.