In reading some of the older posts from the Evolution News and Views blog, I came across a short post by Casey Luskin explaining that there is some wiggle room to what was and wasn’t designed in the Intelligent Design (ID) theory.
Of course anyone with a cursory knowledge of ID would be aware that ID fully allows for the action of natural processes, and design is only invoked when we find tell-tale signs of intelligent action, such as high levels of complex and specified information.
At the surface, this seems like a perfectly reasonable statement that makes ID sound as though it is a well-defined theory. However, this view of intelligent design leaves a lot of leeway. How complex and specified does it really have to be to be considered ‘designed’? Since these are arbitrary values, one could never really separate two objects or organisms and say one is designed and one isn’t. This sort non-measurable attributes makes ID not science. However, it does give an ID proponent a way out when something is demonstrably nature driven. All they have to say is that the designer didn’t design that, but now look over here…