I think there would be ways to disperse of intelligent design. Like if things spontaneously became simple (but then we wouldn't be able to comprehend it; since everything would be in completely entropic state and nothing would ever happen...ever). Or if time travel were possible. Both of which are very inprobable (and only apply to an origin of the universe form of ID).
ID and evolution should be seperated based on the fact that the only way they can logically coincide is if one is an origin and the other is the process; not if they're both processes. Otherwise ID (as a 'the way life works' theory) is not scientifically or intrinsically useful, because it cannot predict or describe the natural world in any useful way. It's like saying "anything that's invisible would be white and eventually turn blue - if you could see it." Intelligent Design against Evolution for continuation of life is an invariably one sided debate; as evolution is the only one with presently observable standards (like the black and white moths during the industrial revolution, where at first there were many more white, but as the pollution grew more black moths survived, and then as clean up took place white became the dominant population color again). In a similar situation with ID (where evolution could state the black population grew because the white were eaten, and after clean-up the reverse)...I have no idea how anyone that's a proponent of ID as a process of life could show why it happened.
Comments
ID and evolution should be seperated based on the fact that the only way they can logically coincide is if one is an origin and the other is the process; not if they're both processes. Otherwise ID (as a 'the way life works' theory) is not scientifically or intrinsically useful, because it cannot predict or describe the natural world in any useful way. It's like saying "anything that's invisible would be white and eventually turn blue - if you could see it." Intelligent Design against Evolution for continuation of life is an invariably one sided debate; as evolution is the only one with presently observable standards (like the black and white moths during the industrial revolution, where at first there were many more white, but as the pollution grew more black moths survived, and then as clean up took place white became the dominant population color again). In a similar situation with ID (where evolution could state the black population grew because the white were eaten, and after clean-up the reverse)...I have no idea how anyone that's a proponent of ID as a process of life could show why it happened.