Christians, in the usual over-zealousness to find a new technique for proselytization, have latched onto this repackaging of the ancient argument from design. They gladly proclaim that universe must have had some mysterious designer. The smart ones, up on their studies on what constitutes a state/church violation, are slow to say what "designer" they have in mind. They say it could be anything from gods to goddesses to aliens. Therein lies the problem. A Christian, who admittedly worships a jealous god, should be very wary of any techniques they use that provide an argument and then leave the answer up to speculation. Is this not leading others to believe in what they would consider the totally wrong beings? Are they not responsible for this blasphemy directly because they are choosing to use an indirect approach that can lead almost anywhere?
Intelligent Design supports Islam. Nature exhibits "irreducible complexity" and therefore it must have been designed. That designer must be Allah. Intelligent Design supports Hinduism. Nature, with all it's laws and "fine tuning" must have had an intelligence behind it. That intelligence is Brahma, the creator god. Intelligent Design supports Raelienism. There are too many things that evolution cannot explain. There are too many gaps and abiogenesis has never been fully proven. There have to have been some designing beings. Those beings are aliens. They, with their vast and superior knowledge of genetics produced all of the species on Earth.
You see? Anyone can stick it in her. It all works just the same. Point to gaps, show complexity and watch how the scientifically ignorant superstitious masses believe whatever their training or any skilled orator can convince them did the designing. Intelligent Design is a dirty whore and the Christians responsible for her design are her pimps.
Atheos donec nusquam esse!
(Atheist until nonexistence!)
Subscribe to Science Sunday. It's free!
"Historically, theistic science had many centuries to prove itself, but in the end scientists concluded that they had no need of that hypothesis, and contemporary creationists have nothing to show for their attempts to revive the view that theology is the queen of the sciences. Intelligent design creationists plead that they are only beginning their researches and ask for patience when asked for concrete results of their approach, and at present there is no sign that they will succeed in developing a fruitful discipline."
~Robert T. Pennock
"Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in the Schools"
Intelligent Design Creationism and It's Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives