No wait... Now I am confused!
No. Not serious. I have a habit of forgetting the cute little :>] faces that indicate when I'm not to be taken seriously. My apologies to all.
1. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?2. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation? Or even a competing explanation?
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?Related 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?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. 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 insights? (If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it.)