The argument from design breaks down over whether order must be imposed by a mind or whether it can be self-generated. As we observe in nature, order appears to arise from the intrinsic conditions of existence. There is no need for an exterior mind to impose this order. Order is an emergent and self-generative phenomenon. This is an empirical fact of our experience.
Some theists indeed consider evolution unproven, false, impossible, the-rantings-of-psychotics... usually denying the postulate of Natural Selection, the argument for reproducing, mutation and passing on genes. ID (Creationism) is argued from the other postulate, Diversity of Species. With intelligent design, there is no reason to have multiple forms of eyes, blood types, skeletal structures, nervous systems, the list goes on and on. Evolution explains diversity of species, Intelligent Design would be the exact opposite. There would only need to be a few designs for all life forms. That's not what is observed.
But reality is real. Maybe it depends on how you define reality? The Universe smiles back. Thanx X. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The universe came first, then reason emerged within it and as part of it. The question would be, then, why reason behaves in accordance with the universe. And that is a question evolutionary biology may be able to illuminate.
Its not clear what you are asking for in regards to intelligent design or an absence of intelligent design. "Science" is all the processes involved and "design"is all about purposes, etc. In short, its not clear what the connection is between "how" q's and "why" q's.
I can tell that the universe was intelligently designed because I am here. Who else but an intelligent designer would have designed a universe with me? all hubris aside: The Tao was the Tao before time became time Before existence was non existence Before non existence was the void Before the void was the Tao The Tao is our understanding of the basis of existence The Tao of which we can speak is not the eternal Tao
If a universe is intelligently designed, then within this context all outcomes therein may be considered intelligent. But to define something as intelligent, it has to be contrasted with something that’s not, so without that other something, can you really define this universe as intelligent? Compared with with another universe, might it appear not to be so? In other words the Tao is the bassis for our understanding of existence until its not. A philosophy built on a foundation of smoke.
It seems pretty obvious that if you have a universe that is not structured or developed in accordance to God, then you have a problematic definition of God.
But try pointing that out to one of these overt Abrahamic theists - the normal response is to restructure the universe. Intelligently designed, it becomes, weird stuff like that.
So how would someone persuade one of these ID desperations that their definition of God is what needs changing?
If there is a quick and easy means to dissuade the desperate from adhering to crippled means of thought, I'm sure we will hear about it on sciforums soon enough.
Only in America - and possibly the Middle East. In Europe, saner versions of "theism" tend to prevail.
It seems pretty obvious that if you have a universe that must be structured or developed in accordance to God then you have a definition of God that begs the question.
In America, Mexico, the Middle East, most of Africa, most of Central and South America, and the Abrahamic regions of SE Asia. There is, according to rumor, a pocket of Europe (not all of Europe) that is both theistic in the Abrahamic mode and willing to adjust their conception (the "definition" above) of their deity ("God") to create compatibility with modern scientific discovery and economic/ecological circumstance. Surveys tend to show otherwise - that the belief in the deity and the adjustment involved seem mutually exclusive when taking individuals one by one.