Simple evidence for ID

This evades the question of what is a design.Usually the thesis of "Intelligent Design" is taken to be the claim that some intelligent being acted as a designer to produce the observed biological diversity.If you are merely redefining "intelligent design" to mean the same as "harmony in nature", then you aren't really proving anything.

You appear to be using "design" as an abstraction, rather than as a reference to the work of a designer. And you are applying "intelligent" to the design (or what you call "design") rather than to the designer.As Modulous has already commented, you are really using a variation of the "fine tuning" argument, and calling it an argument for intelligent design. But it isn't. Biologists see this harmony as a result of the adaptation that they see in evolutionary processes.

The word "design" usually refers to a process that is carried out by a designer. You have said nothing about the designer or about the process. Therefore the way you are using "design" seems abstract - disconnected from its usual source of meaning.

If that is how you are using the term, then you need to provide evidence of this putative process of planning that culminated in what you are calling design. No, that won't do. You must actually find evidence for this design process. You can't just make it up as you go along.This thread is supposed to be about evidence.

I was wondering if you intended that as a reply to me. Clearly you clicked the wrong "Reply" button. How do we know that it works flawlessly like a clock. Maybe it works erratically, in fits and starts. But because we are part of the same system, we work with the same fits and starts, and so we don't notice them. I'm not doing that. I'm just rejecting your argument from incredulity.