Here's something I posted on one of my favorite internet forums, Is God Imaginary? :
I'd love for someone here to present me with evidence for intelligent design. Intelligent Design, as I understand it, entails that one or more conscious intelligent agents designed life or altered living things in some way after they came into being. ID Theorists generally refrain from commenting on the nature of the designer, so the designer could (potentially) be of any intelligence level, have any number of possible desires, and have any general nature possible (Could be a supernatural God, or Super Evolved Aliens). If anyone commenting wants to discuss a particular ID hypothesis, rather than a general ID hypothesis, then feel free to state the hypothesis.
Now, what I want to know is this: Can someone show me some Arguments-to-the-Best Explanation for Intelligent Design? How about some empirical predictions made by Intelligent Design? Be sure to state the argument(s) and/or prediction(s) entailed by ID, and of course why these predictions follow from ID (or why the Argument leads directly to ID).
One more thing: Before you give an argument to design based on ordered complexity, you should be aware that other theories account for ordered complexity, too. Genetic Algorithms which work on the principles of Natural Selection generate incredibly complex and orderly systems that perform specific functions.
Here's how one member responded:
I was listening to a debate involving Kenneth Miller recently, and his contention was that all the evidence for creationism (I refuse to call it ID as it's the same thing and I never take well to rebranding. I still call "Snickers" bars "Marathon" bars for example) is so called "negative" evidence.He did this very well as the other side of the debate presented what he thought of as evidence and each and every time Miller showed how it fit "negative" evidence.Essentially what "negative" evidence means is that instead of proving theory 'X' you attempt to disprove theory 'Y' as if by doing so, no matter how successfully, you have proved 'X' by default. Essentially then the "evidence" for Creationism is to try and falsify evolution. Not only have they not even come close to doing this, even if they did falsify evolution to the point of literally decimating it entirely, this would not constitute a single scrap of evidence for Creationism.
And Here's How I Responded:
I don't think negative evidence is necessarily a problem. Perhaps if they showed that ID could explain more than Evolution they would have an argument. But it can't: ID can explain complexity in general, as Evolution can, but they haven't come up with any mechanisms the designer might have used that would predict anything more than the existence of complex structures (Which Evolution already predicts). And they also do not attempt to explain exactly how the designer thought of/designed any particular structure. Which means that they are in no position to criticize Evolutionists who haven't come up with a why and how for the evolution of certain biological structures.