If ID is a theory

[OdwinOddball]

To my way of thinking…anything found in nature that evidences proper fit, form and function within a system can only be the product of intelligent use of available resources.

To quote Colonel Sherman Potter, Horse-Hockey!

Walking down a street, you see a pothole filled with water. The water fills the hole completely, and fits into every nook and cranny in the hole. Does this evidence design? Was the water designed to fill this hole?

Obviously no. The water flowed into the hole and due to its fluid nature shaped itself to perfectly fit the hole.

Similarly life forms grow and adapt to fit environmental niches. A shark is ideally suited to be the most ferocious killing machine in the ocean, because the shark developed over time to serve this purpose. its experience as a species over many millions of years have perfected its body and behaviors to knives thru the water and destroy any prey that gets in its way.

ID takes the top down approach. ID sees a life form fulfilling a certain role in an ecosystem and decides it must have been created to fill that role. Evolution approaches from the bootm, seeing a life form that has adapted overtime to fill a certain role. Honestly they could both be just as logical, except for one major difference. ID requires an unknown, outside, pre-existing intelligence to function. ID then fails again, because you come back to the old "turtles all the way down" problem. ID requires a designer, which requires another designer, etc. This is in no way logical, or evidenced by any experience we have in the natural world. ID fails for exactly the reasons creation fails. They don't answer the question, instead merely pushing the question back one level of abstraction.

 

[MQTA]

right. until we start making clones from dna, ourselves, then maybe we'll get it better and will make more sense