rsl12

This is true. One way to disprove ID is to prove that all life as we know it was created via a process that had no involvement of a higher power in the last few billion years. No one has done so conclusively.

However, the interesting question is not whether the theory can be disproved (cf. flying spaghetti monsterism, which also can't be disproved at the moment), but whether the theory can be proved. The evidence supporting ID, according to supporters, is the amazing complexity and functionality of biological organisms. The argument goes, "How is it possible that such incredible creatures could have been created by the simple laws of physics/chemistry and random chance?" And actually, it's a pretty good starting point. Let's see how we might procede from this. If we see a rock in the ground with a pretty design on it, we can ask, "did this occur from natural phenomena, or did a person create this?" The short simple answer, depending on our degree of laziness, might be simply to say, "well, it's so intricate, a person must have created it" and then walk away. The more rigorous approach would be to go deeper into the problem--find an answer via a number of paths: 1. determine a particular natural phenomenon or combination of phenomena that might cause the design to be engraved in the rock; 2. find the people responsible for the creation of the design and ask them to show how they did it; 3. find specialized tools used to create the design. There are converse proof methods associated with these three methods. These three are much harder: 1a. show that no combination of natural phenomena could produce the design; 2a. find all people that might be responsible for the creation of the design and prove that none of them did it; 3a. show that no tool could ever be used to create the design.

All the converse proofs are difficult, if not impossible in practice; however, they may be used in a pinch by your typical rational fellow. For example, if we are wondering about the question: are Indian arrowheads created by people or natural phenomena? People accept they were created by people, I think, only because no-one has found any explanation in natural phenomena for their existence (method 1a), and because none of the other methods of proof (methods 1, 2, and 3 in particular) have yielded any results. Motive is a supporting argument: there is plenty of reason to believe that people would have a reason in exerting so much effort in creating arrowheads. However, motive is *only* a supporting argument--if a natural phenomenon could explain why arrowheads exist, the motive argument would fall by the wayside (why would people go through the trouble of creating arrowheads that are already being produced by nature?)

Let's look at ID and evolution. The ID argument is strictly 1a, and not exhaustive--no natural phenomena can explain the complexity of life; however, ID does not claim to have examined every possible natural phenomenon. This is in direct opposition to evolution, which uses argument method 1: the progress of functionality in life can be explained from natural phenomena. Now, given the choice between a very tentative argument using method 1a and a more solid argument using method 1, I will choose the method 1 argument every time! There are certainly ways of proving ID more solidly (methods 2 and 3)--and I would welcome seeing evidence along those veins.

PS. Some people see long-winded arguments (like the one I present above) as being proof that ID vs. evolution is a controversial topic in science; in fact, it is not. I would also require a long-winded argument to explain why E=mc^2, but that doesn't make it controversial. A more accurate estimate of the degree of contention regarding a topic might be the number of dissenting opinions published in scientific journals. I'm sure someone can come up with stats for this regarding ID vs. evolution.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.