Intelligent Design Argumentative Analysis

Darwin would be happy to discover that 150 years after the publication of “On the Origin of Species,” the scientific community remains convinced about evolution—not only on the basis of the evidence he cited, but also based on evidence from sources he could not have dreamed of. But he would not be happy to learn that almost half of the American population do not accept evolution. Moreover, he would be downright dismayed to know that a group of creationists has devised a minimalist form of Creationism—dubbed "Intelligent Design"—in the hope of evading the constitutional barrier to teaching creationism in public schools. I am suspicious about the design-type idea not only due to the fact that ID derives from creationism, but also because of the faulty way its proponents develop their arguments.
The argument of Intelligent Design commences from a denial of evolutionism, which turns Intelligent Design into a sophistry. This argument roots the correctness of its idea on the ground that Darwinism is inconceivable and lacks evidence to prove its correctness. However, a theory should not establish its argument from the denial of another theory. "The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially
Although the idea of Intelligent Design shows only two choices, there exist more in reality. The dichotomy is presented as that either human beings were created as written in the bible, or evolved by chance. The supporters of the Intelligent Design claim that a gap exists in the understanding of some aspects of Darwinism, and that, therefore, the cause must be supernatural. "Evolution may produce small-scale changes—like the different finch beaks Darwin observed—but for humans to come about requires the intervention of some kind of intelligence," asserts Phillip Johnson, the law professor of University California,