Lack of Defining Features of Intelligent Design

So who was the designer, then? Human beings, the only known designers, were not around to do it, yet.Since there wasn't a designer, we know that the appearance of design is the result of evolution by natural selection, not by actual design. And we know that natural selection and random mutation can create the appearance of design.That some people see "design" when they look at the natural world is not an indication that anything has been designed. It certainly becomes incumbent on scientists to explain why things look designed in some cases, but natural selection and random mutation does that in the case of every organism that has evolved.There's no evidence of rational intent to acknowledge, Bert.

Here's the fault in your reasoning - tentativity and the contingency of human knowledge aren't excuses to jump to conclusions. In fact they're very good reasons to refuse to jump to conclusions except on the basis of good evidence.You, on the other hand, on the basis of no evidence, jump to the conclusion that some intelligent designer is responsible for the diversity of life. To be a reasonable belief, it has to be supported by evidence. What is your evidence? Ben Stein's fraudulent movie?

I guess I don't know what you're talking about. Creationism was the preconceived belief system, historically; but people more interested in evidence than in preconceptions found evidence that contradicted special creation and made a case for evolution.Thus, evolution developed into the scientific consensus view, and creationism was relegated to surviving on dirty tricks and the gullibility of laypeople like yourself. I look forward to it. Of course, it's a lot better to present the evidence than to simply assert that you have the ability do so but can't be bothered. There's actually no controversy. Just an extensive scientific consensus for evolution and laypeople with a limited grasp of the evidence and religious preconceptions.