Anyway, the article cites evidence for intelligent design, so I thought it would be fun to see what these guys count as evidence.
But it’s when we look into the mind-boggling complexity of the living cell that the evidence of design becomes most apparent. And it’s not just the chemical complexity which is breathtaking. It’s the vast information content of DNA which poses the enduring problem of modern biology. What is the source of this functional, specified information? ...So "design" is the best explanation? Really?
All human experience suggests that such information arises only from intelligent mind. To propose that the information in DNA is a reflection of intelligence is to make an inference to the best explanation. In the absence of any other coherent explanation, the ID position, at the very least, is worthy of debate. The core of the issue remains the scientific evidence and raising these other and irrelevant religious points really does nothing to address the evidence.
I mean, even for something hat really was designed, that is a pretty poor explanation. How were the pyramids built? Design. How are computers made? Design. And this is not just the best the ID proponents can manage, it is all they hope for. They live in a world where to declare something designed actually counts as an explanation!
This is not science, it is the antithesis of science.
I am not saying the ID position is not intrinsically worthy of debate, but when the position is labelling something as "designed", and pretending that that explains how it came to be, then it certainly is unworthy of debate.