Even if that were true, it's not a case for intelligent design. Intelligent design requires a complex mechanism to start with - the one that will do the designing. As a theory it's no better off than evolution, except not only does it have to explain the genesis of complex mechanisms, but the means and methods that were used to design and implement the universe we see.
Intelligent design does not deny evolution, it says that it couldn't happen by random mutation and natural selection alone. Hence there had to be something else altering and accelerating the process by guiding the mutations toward the complexity of the present. That something would be need to be able to alter natural processes, so it would have to be "super-natural." That is why main stream science is so resistant to it.
Intelligent design does not deny evolution, it says that it couldn't happen by random mutation and natural selection alone. Hence there had to be something else altering and accelerating the process by guiding the mutations toward the complexity of the present. That something would be need to be able to alter natural processes, so it would have to be "super-natural." That is why main stream science is so resistant to it.
That's what I'm saying: intelligent design doesn't solve the complexity problem, it just shifts the complexity from evolution to a "designer" without ever explaining what designed the designer. Intelligent design itself precludes the "God has always existed" because intelligent design tells us that complex mechanisms cannot spontaneously arise.
(post is archived)