There is a reason why Intelligent Design supporters make their arguments in public debates, press releases, court cases, and similar venues instead of peer reviewed scientific journals: their project isn't the least bit scientific. The "reasoning" behind Intelligent Design doesn't even qualify as bad philosophy, much less bad science.

Andrew Alden, About’s Geology Guide, explains the perverse “logic” of Intelligent Design:

Point A. There are many things about biology and the origin of life for which evolution has no explanation.

Point B. Therefore these things cannot possibly be explained, and some better explanation must be brought forth.

Point C. Since they cannot be explained, they have necessarily been designed.

Point D. That statement having been made, evolutionary theory is crippled and must be supplemented by ID.

Through rhetorical slight of hand, Intelligent Design supporters can mask the more egregious examples of poor logic and most people never notice what is going on. The fact that ID tends to appeal to people’s religious prejudices means that most start out sympathetic to the position. As Alden points out, arguments for ID typically involve an inordinate amount of arm waving that doesn’t accomplish anything aside perhaps from confusing the real issues.

 

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Science?