One of the arguments common for ID is to point to a few components where it is claimed design is evident or that appear to be "Irreducibly Complex".
That argument has always seemed to be among the weakest imaginable if someone wanted to support or assert a designer.
I realize I'm old, slow and not very well educated, but...
If there is a designer, are the ID folk claiming that the Designer only stepped in and designed a few critters or sub-systems?
If that is the case, is there some reason that the Designer only stepped in to design some pretty much irrelevant and unimportant subsystem such as the bacterial flagellum?
If there is a designer, is there some reason the Designer has turned out only mediocre or even minimal designs, designs just barely good enough to meet minimum standards?
If there is a designer, is there any reason we do not see the same design criteria and practices we see in human designed items as pointed out in Message 8?
If there is a designer is there some reason the designer was such an Ignorant or Inept Designer that "the designer was too stupid to either take all the great designs and build one critter that incorporated many of them, or even create ONE single critter that was not just a collection of barely good enough to survive traits" as pointed out in Message 105?
If there is a designer, are the ID folk claiming that the Designer only stepped in and designed a few critters or sub-systems? If that is the case, is there some reason that the Designer only stepped in to design some pretty much irrelevant and unimportant subsystem such as the bacterial flagellum?
They aren't claiming what the limits (or exact number of products) of the designer are at all. The argument they are making is that if they can show even one small detail for which evolutionary mechanisms are not possible, some sort of creation mechanism must be responsible. If it exists in one place, then it could just as easily have occurred many places, but we would not be able to tell due to reproductive realities. That is we couldn't say for sure if it was one vs the other.
Does that make sense?
So to them they are simply looking for the single card they can pull which will topple the whole house of cards. After one instance is recognized, they don't really need any more to have a valid theory. Every other aspect becomes suspect.
The rest of your questions I've seen answered, but never well, so I hope an IDer takes the challenge.
Edited by Silent H, : clarification
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
Well, of course IDs say would say that the eye, wing, and flagellum are all evidence, however they often fail to recognize two concepts in evolution. these are evolutionary scaffolding and exaptation. In short, scaffolding is the concept that a characteristic evolves around support structures which are then removed, like an arch which is supported until the keystone is put in. Exaptation is the concept that characteristics evolve for one use, but then are used for something else eventually. Then bird wing could be an example of this since the earliest stub could have evolved to keep the bird warm (notice the modern bird which sticks its head under its wing in cold weather)