Lets ignore all connections to creationism for a second, as one need not invoke them to dismiss ID. At it's core the concept of Intelligent Design is three logical fallacies rolled into one.
Logical Fallacy number 1: Appeal to Incredulity
It's core is the idea of irreducible complexity, which is an example of the fallacy known as appeal to incredulity. Essentially it states that
life is too complex to have come about by accident, therefore there must be intelligence behind the design. Ignore the fact that evolutionists have detailed explanations of how many of these complex systems come about, for the argument itself is inherently flawed. You cannot 'know' that something is too complex to have come about by accident, you can only believe something is too complex to have come about by accident. Intelligent Design proponents admit that they do not know how the process of natural selection and evolution could be responsible for the complexity of life, however they take it a step further which is where the fallacy occurs. They do not simply state "I don't know how this happened" they state "I know evolution could NOT have accomplished this".
What they don't understand is that simply because you cannot understand something, doesn't make it false, I personally do not understand quantum physics, that doesn't necessarily mean all quantum physicists are just pulling their theories out of thin air. You need some positive evidence beyond personal incredulity to make the leap from complexity to irreducible complexity.
Logical Fallacy number 2: False Dichotomy
A false dichotomy is when you assume there are only two possible answers to a given question. ID proponents assume that if evolution is false, then ID must be true. They are attempting to prove their argument by disproving something else. What ID proponents need to understand is that even if they were successful in utterly disproving evolution, it would not mean ID is correct. It could just as easily be a third option we haven't come up with, which leads us to our last fallacy
Logical Fallacy number 3: Negative Proof
Negative evidence for Evolution is NOT positive evidence for ID. It's really that simple. You can poke at evolution all you want, but in order for ID to be anything more then opinion, you need POSITIVE EVIDENCE. Evidence that suggests ID, not merely compatible with it.
ID as a theory is inherently illogical. All that ID would require in order to give it at least some semblance of legitimacy is a piece of evidence that suggests, rather then is compatible with it's hypothesis. If any ID proponents think there is, I invite them to present it.
Logical Fallacy number 1: Appeal to Incredulity
It's core is the idea of irreducible complexity, which is an example of the fallacy known as appeal to incredulity. Essentially it states that
life is too complex to have come about by accident, therefore there must be intelligence behind the design. Ignore the fact that evolutionists have detailed explanations of how many of these complex systems come about, for the argument itself is inherently flawed. You cannot 'know' that something is too complex to have come about by accident, you can only believe something is too complex to have come about by accident. Intelligent Design proponents admit that they do not know how the process of natural selection and evolution could be responsible for the complexity of life, however they take it a step further which is where the fallacy occurs. They do not simply state "I don't know how this happened" they state "I know evolution could NOT have accomplished this".
What they don't understand is that simply because you cannot understand something, doesn't make it false, I personally do not understand quantum physics, that doesn't necessarily mean all quantum physicists are just pulling their theories out of thin air. You need some positive evidence beyond personal incredulity to make the leap from complexity to irreducible complexity.
Logical Fallacy number 2: False Dichotomy
A false dichotomy is when you assume there are only two possible answers to a given question. ID proponents assume that if evolution is false, then ID must be true. They are attempting to prove their argument by disproving something else. What ID proponents need to understand is that even if they were successful in utterly disproving evolution, it would not mean ID is correct. It could just as easily be a third option we haven't come up with, which leads us to our last fallacy
Logical Fallacy number 3: Negative Proof
Negative evidence for Evolution is NOT positive evidence for ID. It's really that simple. You can poke at evolution all you want, but in order for ID to be anything more then opinion, you need POSITIVE EVIDENCE. Evidence that suggests ID, not merely compatible with it.
ID as a theory is inherently illogical. All that ID would require in order to give it at least some semblance of legitimacy is a piece of evidence that suggests, rather then is compatible with it's hypothesis. If any ID proponents think there is, I invite them to present it.