I don't listen to Kent Hovind. He seems to be a YEC, and as such does not represent the thinking of ID. Why not choose Stephen Meyer? I have analyzed much of his arguments.
Stephen Meyer works with the Discovery Institute. They are interested in promoting Christianity, not doing science. Have you read the Wedge Document?
quote:We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
ID is terrible "science" dressed up to hide that fact that it is a Christian promotion, i.e. Lying for Jesus.
Humans have the ability to understand the genetics and even the randomness of the process but we still cannot know whether or not it has an intelligent root. We can't even know that there isn't intelligent intervention in the process.
As I said, arguing that this is evidence to support the anti-theist position is no different than Faith's argument for evidence for inerrancy of the Bible, or for that matter making a scientific argument for ID.
You're not wrong, but I don't think you are looking at it the right way. And this is coming from a theist.
What we have is an explanation for a phenomenon that works without having a need for a god.
While this doesn't prove that there is no god there, its still a pretty meaningful situation.
Think about it the other way: What if we could not come up with an explanation that works that didn't require a god?
Wouldn't you take that as a indication that a god may be necessary?
If so, then why can you not go the other way and see that having an explanation that works without a god indicates that a god may not be necessary?
Of course "not being necessary" is not the same as "not being there at all", but science works by keeping only what is necessary.
It may be wrong to discount a god, but if the explanation works without it then nobody really cares.
I mean the question that remains open which is whether or not the process itself has an intelligent root cause or not.
We are able to explain the emergence of the process without needing an intelligent root cause.
From a scientific perspective, that is all that matters.
From a scientific POV I completely agree. However if a god does exist then we should all care as presumably there would be a point to our existence and IMHO it would be helpful to know just what that point was.
But we shouldn't care as it pertains to our science experiments.
I go to church and I work in a lab.
I don't bring the beakers to the church and I don't bring the missals to the lab. That's how it should be.