The following is presented within the context of the Intelligent Design argument as expressed in the ideas of individuals such as Michael Behe. I believe such views are usually referred to as theistic evolution whereby an intelligent designer is responsible for some aspect of the evolutionary process.
Obviously the most ambiguous feature of this concept is that it fails to go beyond the abstract. The failure to present any hypothesis regarding the specifc nature of the designer or the specific involvement of the designer in the process is one of the reasons that the ID debate is not very productive.
What is the nature of the posited designer? Is it supernatural or natural? If one were able to demonstrate unequivocally that design is a neccesary component of the process it does not neccesary follow that the designer was supernatural. One could always go out of their way to hypothesis that the desginer was of natural origin - perhaps life on Earth is the result of an alien Exobiologist picking Earth as a labororaroty for genetic experimentation. The possibile conjectures abound. Without specifics one can speculate wildly and go nowhere.
What relation does the designer have to the design? Does the designer sustain the process or simply make the conditions neccesary for the process to arrise spontaneuosly? Did the designer simply put together the molecular machinery and let things take their course?
If the designer is supernatural in origin is this designer omnipotent and omniscient? If so why go through the trouble of tinkering with a natural process when you could simply create it from scracth complete and whole? Why do only half the job and leave the rest to nature?
On another note the common theme I see in the debate put forward by Creationists and ID advocates of all persuasions is the assumption that if the current naturalistic explanation were shown to be false a supernatural explanation is the only alternative.
For the sake of argument we will start with the assumption that Behe's position is correct - The Theory of Evolution in it's current form cannot account for the complexity at the molecular level. We are only left with two conclusions:
A - The process itself cannot be explained by Science or is partly the result of outside influence or design.
B - The Theory in it's current form is incapabale of accounting for the observed complexity. Further advancements will likely bring about a better understanding of the process and bring about a more accurate and complete explanation.
In essence both would require faith so one would need to argue for or against A or B. If I were a totally neutral observer armed with all the facts what arguments would you present to convince me that conclusion A should be given priority over B or vice versa?
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2