Is there actual scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design "theory?"

In multiple threads on the topic, I've repeatedly asked ID proponents for scientific evidence that supports the ID "theory." As far as I know, none has been produced. So I'm curious if anyone knows whether actual scientific evidence has been proposed in the ID community.

Here is an explanation of what has been put forth that I do not consider scientific evidence in support of ID:
-The fine-tuned universe statistics: This is simply a critique of the probability of our universe and life coming into existence "by chance." This isn't evidence for ID because it's only a criticism of existing theories. It isn't enough to say "evolution is wrong, the big bang is wrong, therefore design." There is always the possibility of a third, fourth, fifth, etc alternative to evolution and/or the big bang.

-Irreducible complexity: This has just been debunked too many times to be taken seriously. Michael Behe started by saying the eye was irreducibly complex, but there are myriad examples of partial eyes everywhere in nature. Then he claimed that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. But it has been shown that every part of the flagellum serves another purpose by itself in various microorganisms. Saying something is irreducibly complex is failing to acknowledge that we don't have a complete explanation for it but probably will at some poitn. That isn't evidence.

So, anyone know any actual evidence that has been proposed by ID theorists that supports their argument and isn't just a logical fallacy?

 

If i were to argue for ID, I think i would talk about the properties of water. Once that is designed into the basic nature of reality, letting life result should be easy.

 

I think the fine-tuned universe thought provides evidence, but evidence isn't proof. A high probability of something is not proof, either. So, for the time being, we're stuck with theories.

There are things in the universe that boggle my mind. Consciousness, for example. A total mystery to me.

 

How is it evidence for ID, though? It's like describing the dimensions of a hole and then claiming design because a puddle of water in that hole fits it exactly. It's just looking at the laws that our universe abides by and saying "this looks designed." You could say that about anything. Crystals look designed, but we know they develop naturally. How is it any different to look at the universe and say "it looks designed, therefore design?"

 

Sorry but i am dumb , the universe is fine tunned for what ?

 

I think the biggest problem is if God designed the universe, everything since has been behaving by the rules he created. So therefore detecting an unnatural phenomena will be exceedingly hard

If I was to play devils advocate (Pun intended) I would offer the existence of stars as a starting point. We have the weakest force we know perfectly balanced with the strongest force we know. In other words the irresistible force has met the immovable object

 

No, IDists aren't stuck with theories. Theories are the highest of the high in science. IDists are stuck with fanciful musings.

 

There is none nor will there ever be.

- - - Updated - - -

The other problem with it is how did God design such as self destructive species as humans?

 

There is no real proof that life just evolved on its own either. Evolution could be a part of ID. We are just beginning to be able to control genetic markers. A highly advanced individual or individuals could have done the same on Earth. BTW, it is not out of the realm of possibility that an advanced life form could have seeded the Earth and then revisit on a time scale (for us) of thousands of years that, to them, might be just decades.

 

First, we need to look at the history. First there was creationism, but the courts ruled that was religion, and couldn't be taught as truth in public school. So the creationists looked around and saw that people respected science (though few knew what it is or how it works), because it leads to neat technologies. So the creationists repositioned a literal reading of Genesis as "creation science", in the hopes of fooling the courts.

In the Edwards v. Aguilar decision, the Supreme Court ruled that creation science is still religion. After all, the creationists were still nattering away about god and Jesus and the bible.

So at this point, along comes Philip Johnson, a lawyer and born again creationists, who reads these court decisions and decides to try to trick the letter of the law.He reasoned that if the courts didn't want gods and jesus and the bible mentioned, he'd just leave them out. We don't have "creation" now, we have "intelligent design." And of course the "intelligent designer" is obvious to the veriest dunce - but MIGHT fool the courts. Unfortunately, it was thoroughly tested and the judge ruled that ID "cannot be decoupled from its religious core" or words to that effect.

And what IS the core of ID? Well, good question. As a positive doctrine, it would probably be something like "something unspecified did something unspecfied at an unspecified time in the past, using unspecified means, none of which is susceptible to any conceivable test." But ID is in fact NOT a positive doctrine, it is a gussied-up Argument From Ignorance, as usually expressed. That is "I can't for the life of me imagine that life could possibly result from pure chance without being guided by an intelligence." And on rare occasion, you even find an ID aficionado admitting that, well, it's the Christian God, and the rest is window dressing. EXCEPT when the ID folks are out drumming up funding and donations. They are unabashed about doing this in churches, where the Designer is clearly identified.

 

In the empirical world, there is no such thing as proof.

All of these speculations are fine as far as they go, but UNTIL THEY ARE TESTED, they are idle. Do we find genetic markers? Well, no, not that can be identified. Could some highly advanced alien race have got life started on earth? Sure, but without evidence (AND with a pretty solid body of evidence that such a thing is unnecessary), it's just word games. Could this hypothetical race return to check us out? Sure, but again there is no evidence of such a thing.

Speculations for which there is no evidence, and for which evidence is unobtainable, are not scientific. They are fantasies.

 

But never forget humans at times are capable of great things as well

 

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for scientific evidence that ID theorists allege points solely to design and not to evolution or modern ideas about cosmology. True, scientific research doesn't prove anything. It helps us create models that best fit the natural world. ID theorists constantly claim that they have some evidence on their side, but I have yet to see it. As mentioned in the OP, the only thing I've ever seen them produce is a criticism of current theories and the debunked irreducible complexity idea. I'm curious if anyone actually knows of actual evidence that supports ID.

 

That's what I said.

I never offered ID as proven. That being said, the more we scientifically study our environment the more structure is revealed which points to ID more than chaos.

- - - Updated - - -

I do not separate evolution from ID. Evolution is a system that can be manipulated...we do it now.

 

Evolution is a fact. ID is a fiction, created by extremists for the sole purpose of crow-barring religion into science classes.

 

Actually, without evidence that evolution was guided by an Intelligent Designer the only evidence is for it happening on its own.

 

I already answered that.

 

What causes evolution?

 

But we're not comparing ID to chaos, we're comparing ID to a theory which both explains and predicts, and which has testable and tested mechanisms. ID does not explain, nor predict, nor suggest so much as a single mechanism. And that means it really is nothing more than "that looks designed, so it must be designed."

 

Is this a serious question? Evolution is a positive feedback process. Most of the details of the mechanisms are extremely well studied. If you would be willing to read a book, I could recommend dozens.

 

When you refer to a mechanism, you are describing an assembly of moving parts (machine) whose separate parts interact performing a complete functional motion. So, you are saying that evolution is a machine with a positive feedback process. That is an observation but does not explain the underlying reason for such mechanisms. Yet you seem to be quite sanguine with throwing out an anchor on your commendable voyage through scientific study by excluding what you feel is incorrect.

 

Describe 'on its own.'

 

That's fine, but that doesn't provide any evidence for ID.

 

Yet everything we scientifically quantify has a design. A mechanism is a design. You are claiming design comes from chaos but, without filtering, chaos doesn't create any design.

 

As I already said....we do it now.