Now let’s interpret the data in the inventions vs. biology table.
It doesn’t take a religion to see that biology is full of inventions. In many ways they match or outperform our inventions. Inventions that absolutely required intelligent design. Inventions in biology are litteraly staring us in the face!
Yes, we can make cars that are faster than animals. Yes, in the near future cars might be able to find petrol stations themselves. Yet, every improvement has been and will be an act of intelligent design. And I doubt that we can ever make car factories the size of a car engine.
The most reasonable interpretation to make, one that requires the least direct assumptions, is that nature has been very much intelligently designed.
Admit it, you cannot create a frog that can do all the things a frog does. Whoever made this, is much more intelligent than us. The concept of intelligent design is absolutely evidence based. It is plain obvious!
Pseudoscience: beyond the limits of science
The problem is that we cannot put our designer to the test, which makes him supernatural. An act of supernaturallity is called a miracle. We cannot cause the designer to repeat his actions in order to test him. Because we cannot test the designer, applying the concept of intelligent design in science is considered pseudoscience.
However, this is not a problem of reality, but rather shows the limits of science. Using the term pseudoscience as an argument that the intelligent designer does not exist is just silly. Using the same arguments, we cannot scientifically prove Napoleon Bonapartes actions, because we cannot ask him to do it again. Does this mean Napoleon Bonaparte did not exist?
We have evidence for a lot of Napoleon Bonapartes actions, but like I showed, we also have compelling evidence that nature is very intelligently designed. So we have evidence for this miracle.
Miracle: evidence based
Now read this statement:
“Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”
(Chesterton, Orthodoxy chapter 9.)
So if you do not believe in intelligent design after seeing this evidence, you have a doctrine, regardless of whether it is correct or not.
Have you ever had a situation that somebody explained to you how something works, and that you thought: “That’s clever!”? When you see that, you observe intelligence at work. Have you ever had that thought when you looked at nature?
I cannot even invent something that I can put in the ground, and that knows how to convert that ground into grass. Yet, that is what seeds do. They are so small! Think of how clever that is.
Intelligent design: evidence based
Just to clarify a definition: the intelligent designer is usually called God.
Intelligence is an observable property of the designer/creator God, and it is displayed by his creation.
Scientific prediction to prove intelligent design
Now that we see that intelligent design is a concept based on observations, we can use that information to make scientific predictions. We can do that, because intelligence is not bound to supernaturallity. Let me give you one prediction:
I don’t know if we are ever able to create life. As long as we are not able to do that, it is because we lack knowledge and/or intelligence. However, if we can ever make it, I predict that it will require an incredible lot of knowledge and an incredible lot of intelligent design.