The fallback position will be the same argument from ignorance.
"Since we can't see a designer, there is no design."
When the ignorant chance devotees are asked what test did you apply to know if there was a designer, or design, they simply respond...we didn't find one, so the only observed data must be a consequence of ignorant chance.
This position of building an entire scientific theory from an argument employing the fallacy of "argument from ignorance" is not genuinely a scientific position, it is a fallacious conclusion turned into dogma, and because of the many benefits of scientific discovery of modern science in ways to improve the quality of life to the sheeple of American, scientists and their theories are given a free pass. They don't have to follow the rules of logic, because the "scientists" are above logic. The argument from authority of scientists, which is often logically fallacious, now is ruling the minds of the sheeple.
In fact, the existentialists who push purposeless evolution, can't even produce an argument that would demonstrate why a designer, or design is not as much of a logical possibility as ignorant chance.
I think someone was spouting that 70% of the people polled rejected the idea of ID being taught in schools.
Well, here is the deal. If people were thinking ID of the fundamentalist Christians, then that is one thing to reject. I would agree not to teach any particular religion or denomination of a religion.
However, if ID is what I have been defining it as, as simply not ignorant chance, then I think you would see people begin to embrace this concept of ID. The ID I suggest doesn't make evolutionary theory false, it just puts it where it rightfully belongs, a set of observed processes of LIFE, not an explanation that LIFE is without meaning because no larger meaning is observed.
There is no complex system that I know of that can be fully understood by examination of a part, no system that is fully understood by examination of a subset alone. No forest that is truly known and understood by examination of a tree.
Oh, and while the following it is a strawman argument, it illustrates a point:
The vast majority of Americans thought 2002 that there were WMD in Iraq because the "experts" in the field said they were there. Polls after the Bush and Cheney push, and Powell's fiasco at the UN, showed a very high percentage believed there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam would use them on the US. Of course, now the polls have reversed.
So, we have precedent for the people to be duped, or misled, or manipulated, or simply blindly following ignorant leadership.
The bottom line is that non ID theory is:
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Quote from Teleologist:
James Bond 3rd:
You're the one that doesn't get it. It is the Darwinist position that the evolutionary process is devoid of design. Richard Dawkins refers to evolution as the blind watchmaker because in his words it is a "blind, unconscious, automatic process which which we know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life....it has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1987), ix.]
Darwinism is an anti-teleological theory. It's a theory whose purpose is to deny the inference of design.
ID is an alternative perspective on evolution. It contends that evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.
