Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?

Double postEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To be "evidenced" in scientific terms does not just mean a bunch of known facts weaved together to form an interpretation. Especially one designed to fit a predefined view of the world.SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
A scientifically evidenced theory is one that has been tested. The essence of science and the thing that makes it different and more reliable than any other form of investigation is the use of hypotheses and the testing of conclusions. Observation, interpretation, analysis etc. etc. are a means to an end which without incorporating the key concept of testing are incapable of achieving the reliability of any truly scientifically evidenced theory. Unless conclusions are tested they are open to misinterpretation, philosophical bias and subjective reasoning.
Scientific evidence is evidence that positively supports a theory or hypothesis by being consistent with the predictions and logical consequences of the theory in question. The most objective and best supporting evidence for a scientific theory is indisputably new evidence discovered directly as a result of the theory in question.PREDICTION - THE GOLD STANDARD
A new particle predicted and discovered as a result of theory.
A transitional fossil searched for and located specifically on the basis of geological and evolutionary knowledge.
A newly observed physical phenomenon, such as the bending of light around massive bodies, sought out based purely on theory and confirmed by experiment.
These types of result are the gold standard of scientific evidence.We can easily make our theories consistent with known facts but making specific new facts consistent with detailed predictions is all but impossible unless there is some truth to the theory being tested.
Unless we test our theories all we have are interpretations of known facts which, no matter how objective we may try to be or how accurately we have obtained our facts, are inevitably subject to subjective misinterpretation. Only by making the truth of nature the judge, jury and, where necessary, the executioner with regard to our theories can we truly have any confidence in them.INTELLIGENT DESIGN
There is no evidence for Intelligent Design that could be called 'scientific'. It is remarkable that a "theory" that purports to be both scientific and true has never made a single verifiable prediction that can positively confirm it's veracity. It is unbelievable that a "theory" that purports to be both scientific and true has never ever resulted in the discovery of a single new piece of evidence. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Diddly squat.CONCLUSION
All ID ever does is re-interpret the evidence discovered as a result of truly scientific theories.
None of the "evidence" you list for ID qualifies as evidence by any scientific standard at all. Most of it does not even attempt to positively verify ID at all. Instead it seeks only to discredit the alternative.
At best your list is the basis for an unverified (unverifiable?) hypothesis.
At worst it is a blatant bastardisation of scientific evidence used to prop up an irrational faith based predefined world-view by superficially opposing genuinely scientific conclusions for purely philosophical reasons.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. The magic wand wielding mathematical unicorn created all that there is. She did this in such a manner as to be entertained by humans chasing their tails trying to work out how it was all done and maliciously misleads us with false clues.All of the evidence you claim for ID is equally consistent with this theory.
Yes the magic unicorn theory is ridiculous. But so is ID.

Not a single verifiable prediction

Not a single discovery

​

Both ID and the magic unicorn theory share these things in common. Seriously what else needs to be said about ID to discredit it?

Firstly it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of theists in the world also accept evolutionary theory based on this same evidence..............
More importantly, this continual assertion that any scientific theory as established and evidenced as evolution could possibly be just a subjectively derived interpretation of facts in the way that ID so obviously is, needs to be quashed. This is just not how real science works.TESTING THEORIES
Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly tested by prediction against observation. Evolutionary theory has repeatedly been verified by this most objective method of testing available. In doing so evolutionary theory has led directly and demonstrably to the discovery of new evidence.Prediction and discovery. The hallmarks of objective positive scientific evidence. If ID/creationism is even as vaguely well evidenced as Evolution why is it -

That ID has never made a single verifiable positive prediction that can distinguish it from evolutionary theory?

That ID has never ever once led to the discovery of any new evidence or observable physical phenomenon?

​

A supposedly large scale and all encompassing scientific theory that has never ever ever resulted in a single prediction or discovery. Not once. It baffles me how anyone can possibly seriously advocate such a thing.

​

There quite obviously is no scientific evidence for ID at all.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes so do we all. So far none of you have "put forth" a single piece of positive evidence or a single "reasonable argument".What are the odds of anyone actually doing so.......? Slim.

Something along the lines of "Blessed are those who believe but do not see" I guess. Although how this could account for the evident physical absence of any designer other than the Christian God I am not sure.Now I think of it.......
Doesn't the whole "Blessed are those who believe but do not see" mean faith in the absence of evidence is to be rewarded? Is not seeking evidence for ID and creationism directly contradictory to this? Are those who seek evidence for ID and creationism less "blessed" for seeking to "see"?It seems to me that in terms of the Christian outlook the whole idea of seeking evidence for ID/creationism is kinda contrary to the spirit of faith anyway.

Beretta Intelligent Design theory has never led to a single discovery. Ever.Why is this in your opinion?

The title of this thread is -
Evidence for Intelligent Design - Is There Any?Apparently not...........?

The argument of 'it looks like design' is very weak and is not evidence by any scientific standard. However for the sake of argument lets consider this.APPARENT DESIGN AND "MICROEVOLUTION"
Relatively minor adaptations that you would no doubt class as 'microevolution' also have a strong appearance of design. You however accept these as natural and observed processes. A polar bear looks like it was designed for an arctic environment. But you would no doubt claim this "apparent design" as being just microevolution from some sort of generic "bear kind". DESIGN: APPARENT OR REAL
The problem you have is distinguishing the design that you claim is necessarily a product of God (or whoever) and the apparent design of "microevolution" which you accept as natural, real and observed.If you are going to claim the appearance of design in nature as evidence for a designer then you need to be able to distinguish between the aspects of nature that can appear designed without divine designer intervention and those that cannot.
This presumably is where specified complexity comes in.SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY
Unless specified complexity can derive a method of classifying complexity of change such that it can distinguish between those changes that require designer intervention and those that cannot I don't see any real point to this theory in relation to your anti-evolution argument.Can it do this and if so on what observational or theoretical basis is this calculated?PS - You are still avoiding answering the question as to why you think ID has never ever once resulted in a single discovery Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Discrete Harmonic Oscillator? Is that what you call toothbrushes in Never Never Land?

This still does not amount to any more of an argument than "It looks designed so there must be a designer". This thread is about the evidence for ID. Maybe if you were more specific as to an exact example that you think meets this criteria of being "so complex or intricate" that it's existence is impossible by any natural means we could analyse that example.Do you have an example in mind?

As I understand it the species that we commonly know of as modern man (i.e. us) is not dependent upon the preceding existence of neanderthal man. Neanderthal man shares a common ancestor with modern man. We are not descended from neanderthal man.Whether or not modern man and neanderthal man mated during the period of time in wich their existence overlapped is a matter of some speculation. However even if it did occur it is my understanding that any neanderthal contribution to the current human gene pool is insignificant.Anyway...... Evidence for ID?

OK. Is anyone claiming that such a thing has arisen by purely natural processes?This seems more like a smart arse answer than an attempt to present any positive evidence for ID?

It is outrageous that a "theory" that has never led to a single discovery and which is utterly unable to present any positive evidence for it's conclusions should even be under discussion as a serious topic in science, society or education.ID/Crationists when will you realise that you have no argument, no position, no case and no point?

Those IDists/creationist who claim that the evidence is on their side have neither faith nor evidence as far as I can see.It is worth keeping this thread, or others like it, alive purely to highlight the paucity of the IDist argument with regard to the evidence based side of their argument.Hence my ***Bump***