Intelligent design sadly does not jibe with the evidence. It has great trouble dealing with extinctions, or with signs of clearly bad design (see Stephen Jay Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb and other writings on this subject). It has no observable, replicable evidence of the supposed “Designer.” It doesn’t say how or when the design was translated into creation. But this is only the beginning of its problems. Far worse is that it is not scientific, that is, it does not provide us with observable evidence. It is worse than a “fill in the gaps” theory; it is a “gaps are our proof” theory! It reminds one of the old Sid Harris cartoon with the two white-coated scientists looking at a board full of equations that does not quite add up. One simply puts in a variable and says “and then a miracle happened.” Imagine the state of modern physics, medicine, and the like if we took this method for more than a test spin!
yes. apt. especially that cartoon.