generalizations are not arguments from ignorance. Assuming such an in-principle argument can be made (and for the sequel I will assume it can), the design theorist's inference to design can no longer be considered an argument from ignorance.

and then trying to formulate design as a replacement theory, young earth creationists typically claimed that neither Darwinism nor design could properly be regarded as scientific (after all, so the argument went, no one was there to observe what

Reveals a Universe Without Design Dawkins may be right that design is absent from the universe. But design theorists insist that science address not only the evidence that reveals the universe to be without design but also the evidence that

To be sure, front-loaded design is a logical possibility. But so is interactive design (i.e., the design that a designer introduces by imparting information over the course of natural history). The only legitimate reason to limit all design to

that might be expected on a design hypothesis), then intelligent design is untestable and therefore unfruitful for science. Yet to place this demand on design hypotheses is ill-conceived. We infer design regularly and reliably without knowing

back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but I want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism. Ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent

The Argument From Design Play All Seth Shostak on Carbon and Fine Tuning Play Joel Primack on Structure, Size, Time and the Argument for Design

“X was intelligently designed”? Presuming that intelligent design is some form of action, what kind of action ? And, action by what sort of agent ? We speak often today of things that have been designed. Cars are designed;

Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall. When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of

of the intelligent designer borders on the laughable. According to ID, God would need to intervene in evolution for nature to produce complex systems such as the eye, which is designed for seeing. Now, if God designed the eye, then why do