I wouldn't be invested in ID if it was only critical of Darwinism.
Then what is the positive evidence FOR Intelligent Design?
Where can I make or confirm observations as to what happened - in what way was design applied? Where can I make or confirm observations as to where/when/how this occurred?
Please show me how Intelligent Design is an explanation of anything. At this point, its advocates are only trying to declare it as an attribution. Do you realize the distinction?
'A designer did it' is an attribution, not an explanation. It's exactly equivalent to me coming home to find a broken vase and having my child say 'a friend did it'. That EXPLAINS nothing about HOW the vase got broken.
It's no more of an explanation in its field than 'our stars determine our fates' is an explanation in Astrology. A claimed agency with no actual evidence of what that agency does or has done, how that agency works (beyond the claimed 'it did things we don't yet know other explanations for').
For that matter, at least Astrology can point to some characteristics of how it has to work. Not effective before birth; directional from certain solar system bodies; influences from different bodies being qualitatively distinct from one another; such influences combinatorial in that influences from different celestial bodies amplify, modify, nullify one another depending on positions relative to each other and relative to the background star field; and more.
Has anything as specific as these vague characteristics been determined (or even conjectured) for how design works? Or are they not even as close to being an explanation as Astrology?
It can be found anywhere through the microscope to the telecope. The fine-tuning of all of these things:
1. the cell 2. the terrestrial environment of the earth (things such as life supporting cycles and radioactive isotopes) and our life supporting moon. 3. the solar system and its position in the galaxy which also happens to be a galaxy better suited to support life. 4. fine-tuning of physics of our universe such as gravity and nuclear force.
Here is an example I found from physics:
Mathematician Roger Penrose (Penrose 1981) has estimated that the margin of error permitted here was less than 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power (that is, 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros, more zeros than there are particles in the universe!)
No, he did not 'estimate'. He threw numbers together without showing they actually meant anything but came up with a big, big number. For them to have any meaning, the likelihood of those values being different must be known. Please show me where the range of possible values and corresponding probabilities have been determined.
In fact, a thorough statistical analysis of all known universes shows that the probability of a universe existing with the exact properties we see in this one is ... unity. Exactly 1/1.
But, more than that, none of this is evidence FOR design. It shows no demonstrable traces of the implementation of design. Despite your claims to the contrary, all you have IS your disbelief in the ability of unassisted natural processes to do things.
'It's just so unlikely' is NOT evidence FOR ID.
You wouldn't accept that throwing the broken pieces of a vase into a bag and shaking it would create a new vase. You would demand an explanation other than that one.
Of course. As nothing like that had been seen to have happened, I would be extremely skeptical of it. I don't know of anyone who thinks that's something that happens. Except for the completely clueless anti-science types which try to misrepresent what science says in some 'tornado-in-a-junkyard-making-an-airlpane' spew, I haven't seen anybody put forth that kind of an idea.
But it does seem to indicate the difference between attribution and explanation isn't something you've grasped very well.
Or maybe you can show in what way ID is an explanation (or necessary part of an explanation), NOT an attribution, for ... well, anything. What happened and how did it happen, not just 'designer-did-it'.
You see, it's the fact that no research has been done, is being done, is planned on being done into the things which 'could' make it an explanation that keeps it, and quite rightly so, in the company of other occult pursuits like Astrology.
If you can prove this then I will leave this site forever.
I suggest that if your understanding of statistics and probability is so woefully poor, you should avoid basing your worldview on something you are completely ignorant of.
We know of exactly one universe, the one we're in. The one we're in has the properties that it has. Therefore, the probability of a universe existing with the properties we see in our own is precisely unity. 1/1. 100%.
The probability of anything existing which is known to exist is that same unity, that same 100%.