Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?"

Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?"

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance

Origins can be explained either by a conscient intelligent designer, which is the grounding necessary foundation of all contingent existence like our universe, or not, in other words, either there is a God, or not. Verificationism is the claim that ONLY what can be experimentally demonstrated is true. This is self-refuting since it cannot be experimentally proven that the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be experimentally proven " is True.

The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. A solid epistemological framework that is consistent must carefully be chosen and use an elaborated methodology permitting to come to a meaningful, and most accurate possible conclusions in regards to origins and reality. Instead of looking only for scientific "proof" or confirmation in an absolute sense, better is to proceed with examining the available evidence-based on science, philosophy, and theology, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence using the bayesian method of abductive reasoning.

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we recognize things in nature very similar to human-made artifacts, things made based on mathematical principles, and made with an end goal in mind. The construction of functional irreducibly complex multipart-machines,  integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers integrate software/hardware that store high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that require and store large amounts of data through codes and languages, and which are constructed in the interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.

DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome.   Cells also require and use over two dozen epigenetic codes, like Splicing Codes,  Metabolic Codes,   The Glycomic Code, etc. Furthermore, all kinds of irreducibly complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing and metabolic pathways are necessary, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimum number of parts and complex inter-wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. Furthermore, the real mechanisms that explain biodiversity and complex organismal architecture are preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication by various signaling codes through various signaling networks

Furthermore, the Origin of life research during over half a century has demonstrated that there are no viable explanations in regards to the prebiotic origin of the four classes of the basic building blocks of life by random, unguided processes, and consequently, living self-replicating cells is extremely unlikely. Also, statistical calculations have demonstrated, that getting a minimal cell proteome of 438 proteins total to make a first living cell, the probability would be  438/10^520.  We arrive at a probability of about 1 in 10^350.000 which is in the realm of the virtually impossible.  
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by demonstrating that competitors to that proposition are false. Science, rather than coming closer to demonstrate how life could have started, has not advanced and is further away to generating living cells starting with small molecules.  Therefore, most likely, cells were created by an intelligent designer.  Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in regards of first-degree speciation & macroevolutionary level has been falsified. Instead of evolving, organisms devolve. And there is not enough time for evolution to establish even the most trivial amount of new information. Even a coordinated pair of mutations that first inactivates a binding site and then creates a new one is very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale. For example, the odds of getting two mutations right, to give hemoglobin C Harlem in one generation in an individual whose parents have normal hemoglobin, are about a hundred million times a hundred million (10^16). On average, then, nature needs about that many offspring in order to find just one that has the right double mutation. With a generation time of ten years and an average population size of one million, on average it should take about a hundred billion years for that particular mutation to arise—more than the age of the universe.

As a conclusion, the evidence that natural, unguided random events are too unlikely to occur, and the experience that intelligence can bring forward the systems described above and encountered in nature, applying bayesian abductive reasoning, and not merely based on lack of knowledge, or ignorance, an Intelligent Designer is the most plausible explanation of origins.


Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?"

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance?highlight=ignorance

God of the gaps


is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid  to address actually the issues raised. Atheists resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear  and detailed observation , and logical inference and conclusion. Please point out the gap in the argument.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/why_intelligent068151.html

" In all of our experience of cause and effect, we know that complex and sequence-specific information, when it is traced back to its source, uniformly originates with an intelligent cause. Therefore, when we find complex and sequence-specific digital information encoded in the hereditary molecules of DNA and RNA, the most plausible candidate explanation -- given what we do know about the nature of information -- is that it also originated with a source of intelligent agency.


http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1186

Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?"

No. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely claims that because we can't figure out how some biological structures could have arisen, therefore they were probably designed. The argument for design is not like this. In reality, the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.

Misrepresenting the Definition of Intelligent Design

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/misrepresenting_the_definition028051.html

Behe at the Dover trial : (Day 10 AM Testimony, p. 110.)
"This argument for design is an entirely positive argument. This is how we recognize design by the purposeful arrangement of parts."

Behe also made this clear in the afterward to Darwin's Black Box:

[I]rreducibly complex systems such as mousetraps and flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin's and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design. (Darwin's Black Box, pp. 263-264 (2006).)

Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer also explain the positive argument for design:
Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system ... in any other context we would immediately recognize such systems as the product of very intelligent engineering. Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. ("Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic Bacteria," in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece (2004).)

This specified complexity, also called complex and specified information (CSI), is a tell-tale indicator that intelligence was at work. Meyer explains why this makes for a positive -- not negative -- argument for design:

by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation. (Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).)

1. It is our consistent observation that functional design and construction at high disequilibrium with the environment, only happen as the result of intelligent agency.

2. We reasonably infer intelligent agency from many sophisticated structures all around us (e.g., a house, or the computer / phone you are writing your comment with). This should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, but for some it is not - due to unwarranted bias or prejudice IMO.

3. There is no *a priori* reason - logically or philosophically, to reject God (as in the Bible) as a causative agent. Note that God is not just some "super being" living within our universe. (In fact, your phrase "a god..." tells me you are not even grasping that concept of God in the Bible. There is only a class of ONE God [one in nature, three in Person via the Trinity] in the Christian understanding. As soon as you say "a" about God, your train has already derailed.)

4. If we could liken ALL of discoverable physical reality - the entire universe, and all that is in it - to the contents of a giant shoe box (as it were) then God is OUTSIDE the box. He created it, sustains its contents and if He desires, intrudes into its operation. Most of the atheist conceptions of God are some alleged FSM, faerie, superman, magician etc. WITHIN the box.

This is a whole separate thread sometime, but I see the limitations of atheist arguments about God as a failure to (literally) "think outside the box".

None of this proves that God exists, but would categorically submit that *you cannot rule God out* - for creation, for occasional miracles (intrusions into the box), and for my and your ultimate destiny.

5. The problem of evolution, and the atheist scenario in general, is that [a] it is entirely within the box, and [b] there is no intelligent cause, agency or interference allowed, even within the box. So even "alien intelligence created life" has its own limitations within the box.

Therefore, the atheist scenario needs to [a] explain and [b] demonstrate the event of a pile of chemicals (as it were) becoming alive, [b] the living forms acquiring sophisicated form and functions, all by unguided physical and probabilistic causes. This has not happened (not even close).

6. The fossils do not demonstrate gradual Darwinian changes, i.e. true gradual transitions (which Darwin hoped would be discovered someday), In theory, every animal on the supposed evolutionary "tree" could be the parent or child of the next closest animal on the tree. This has not been demonstrated.

7. The alternative would be some form of a Goldschmidt's monster (e.g., a dinosaur lays an egg and a bird pops out) which again has NEVER been observed, nor is it plausible.

https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/


Is irreducible complexity merely an "argument from ignorance?"

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance#3320

Michael Behe’s testable predictions regarding Irreducible Complexity.
Molecular biologist Jonathan McLatchie also wrote an essay on this subject.  An irreducibly complex system is one that (a) the removal of a protein renders the molecular machine inoperable, and (b) the biochemical structure has no stepwise evolutionary pathway.  Michael Behe further describes the condition:

“An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002.  Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840).

In other words, natural selection is not capable of selecting given mutations. But even lets argue that natural selection selects neutral ( not deteriorative mutations ) and fixes them into the population. In case of the chlorophyll pathway, it had to specify the pathway of 17 intermediate steps, in case of heme 8. Not only had it to select the right highly specific pathway sequence ,  it had to have the enzymes readily available for recruitment, which in our case would not be possible, until the given enzymes had evolved as well with gene duplication , mutation, and natural selection, but if available, the enzymes had to be available all at the same time. Furthermore, the selected parts had all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. The enzymes must work in a coordenated, just the right way. One enzyme picking up the product of the previous step at the right place. Like in a factory production line, one worker handles the part, builds in or advances its construction by adding or mounting a part, and afterwards handles it over to the next craftsman for the next manufacturing step. In order to do so, it must know where to handle it over, and do it in a chronological sequenced way. In case of your biosynthesis pathway,  all this must be previously be programmed in the genome, and happen like in robotics, in a automated way without external intervention, because prevously programmed.

On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed. And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms could produce the same result, given enough time. the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.


http://www.discovery.org/a/1256

William Dembsky:

The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort through all those options. The problem is that natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Natural processes could theoretically form a protein, but also compatible with the formation of a plethora of other molecular assemblages, most of which have no biological significance. Nature allows them full freedom of arrangement. Yet it’s precisely that freedom that makes nature unable to account for specified outcomes of small probability.Nature, in this case, rather than being intent on doing only one thing, is open to doing any number of things. Yet when one of those things is a highly improbable specified event, design becomes the more compelling, better  inference.

Occam's razor also boils down to an argument from ignorance: in the absence of better information, you use a heuristic to accept one hypothesis over the other.

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or152/152main.htm

It is fully rational for a scientist who recognizes the intractability of his research puzzle to abandon it, if he discovers that the puzzle presupposes something false. (Indeed it would be irrational to do otherwise.) It is likewise fully rational for a scientist to find another puzzle to solve, one posed by a theory grounded on different principles.

"It is important to realize," Behe said, "that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box." While we may be shocked to find open boxes speaking plainly of design, he said, "we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on."

Looking for a Theory of Design with Positive Content

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or152/152main.htm#22

If we take a design-based theory as our guiding picture, however, the gap created by the evolutionary puzzle "How did life arise naturalistically?" wouldn't be so much filled by design as dissolved by it. "How did life arise naturalistically?" as Kuhn writes of the problems posed by theories generally, is:

... a puzzle for whose very existence the validity of the paradigm must be assumed. Failure to achieve a solution discredits only the scientist and not the theory. Here ... the proverb applies: 'It is a poor carpenter who blames his tools.'

It is not a poor carpenter who blames the blueprint, however, when he finds that it dictates an impossible structure. It is fully rational for a scientist who recognizes the intractability of his research puzzle to abandon it, if he discovers that the puzzle presupposes something false. (Indeed it would be irrational to do otherwise.) It is likewise fully rational for a scientist to find another puzzle to solve, one posed by a theory grounded on different principles.

To do so, of course, we carpenters (or scientific mosaic-builders) must have a theory of design that projects its own patterns into the space established by the question, "How did living things come to be?" It would then not be evolutionary theory telling us what to expect observationally and theoretically, but design

Some of the so-called "unsolved problems" of evolutionary theory might then become design-based predictions, perhaps framed as proscriptions, that is, as propositions of the form "event or phenomenon x will not occur."

Consider an example. In 1983, the creationist molecular biologist Siegfried Scherer published a paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology on the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport, the energy-producing mechanism of bacterial photosynthesis. He estimated the number of basic functional states required to evolve "a microorganism with a light-driven cyclic electron transport process" from "an anaerobic heterotrophic microorganism lacking membrane-associated electron transport" -- a critical step in the early evolution of life.

Scherer estimated that no fewer than five new proteins would be needed to move from "fermentative bacteria, perhaps similar to Clostridium" to fully photosynthetic bacteria. Taking known mutation rates and the estimated numbers of mutations required for the five new proteins, Scherer calculated the probability that the necessary basic functional states could have evolved. Assuming a mutation rate of 10-4, "the range of probabilities estimated," he concluded, "is between 10-40 and 10-104 ... In other words, in 109 years an FeS-protein may sometimes appear, whereas photopigments and quinones" -- other proteins required for the evolutionary transition --"are never expected."

It's a difficult problem for evolutionary theory, to say the least. How, within the available time, and by known mechanisms, did the necessary bacterial proteins arise? "From the data presented," concluded Scherer, "the evolution of cyclic photosynthetic electron transport is an unsolved problem in theoretical biology. On the basis of present understanding, no solution can be expected."

Theist: The DNA code is written by a intelligent mind.
Atheist : Emergent properties, and physical reactions, are perfectly capable to produce the code stored in DNA.
Theist : There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to encode the information stored in DNA
Atheist: God of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, does not mean, Godidit.

Theist : "The  sentence you are reading now was written by a intelligent mind"
Atheist: "Emergent properties, and physical reactions  are perfectly capable to screen these letters to the monitor"
Theist : "There is no known natural mechanism ( aka no intelligence involved ) to type these letters and they to appear on the screen"
Atheist: "Argument of the gaps. Argument from ignorance. Because we don't know yet, that does not mean, a intelligence did it"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#gaps_god

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning:

(a) Intelligent designers exist and act in the world.

(b) When they do so, as a rule, they leave reliable signs of such intelligent action behind.

(c) Indeed, for many of the signs in question such as CSI and IC, intelligent agents are the only observed cause of such effects, and chance + necessity (the alternative) is not a plausible source, because the islands of function are far too sparse in the space of possible relevant configurations.

(d) On the general principle of science, that “like causes like,” we are therefore entitled to infer from sign to the signified: intelligent action.

(e) This conclusion is, of course, subject to falsification if it can be shown that undirected chance + mechanical forces do give rise to CSI or IC.  Thus, ID is falsifiable in principle but well supported in fact.

In sum, ID is indeed a legitimate scientific endeavor: the science that studies signs of intelligence.


(a) Intelligent designers exist and act in the world.
(b) When they do so, as a rule, they leave reliable signs of such intelligent action behind.
(c) Indeed, for many of the signs in question such as CSI and IC, intelligent agents are the only observed cause of such effects, and chance + necessity (the alternative) is not a plausible source, because the islands of function are far too sparse in the space of possible relevant configurations.
(d) On the general principle of science, that “like causes like,” we are therefore entitled to infer from sign to the signified: intelligent action.
(e) This conclusion is, of course, subject to falsification if it can be shown that undirected chance + mechanical forces do give rise to CSI or IC. Thus, ID is falsifiable in principle but well supported in fact.

From Stephen Meyers book Signature in the cell :

Argument from Ignorance?

Over the years, I have participated in many debates about the theory of intelligent design at scientific conferences, on university campuses, and on television and radio programs. In nearly every debate, my debate partner has claimed that the case for intelligent design constitutes an argument from ignorance.

Arguments from ignorance occur when evidence against a proposition is offered as the sole (and conclusive) grounds for accepting some alternative proposition.

Critics of intelligent design often assert that the case for intelligent design commits this
fallacy.

1 They claim that design advocates use our present ignorance of any natural or material cause of specified information as the sole basis for inferring an intelligent cause for the origin of biological information. They accuse ID advocates of arguing for intelligent design based only upon evidence against the adequacy of various natural causes. Since we don't yet know how biological information could have arisen, we invoke the mysterious notion of intelligent design. In this view, intelligent design functions not as an explanation, but as a fig leaf for ignorance.

The inference to design as developed here does not commit this fallacy. True, some of the previous chapters of this book do argue that, at present, all types of material causes and mechanisms fail to account for the origin of biological information from a prebiotic state. And clearly this lack of knowledge of any adequate material cause does provide part of the grounds for inferring design from information in the cell, although it is probably more accurate to characterize this supposed "absence of knowledge" as knowledge of absence, since it derives from a thorough search for alternative materialistic causes and a thorough evaluation of the results of numerous experiments performed over several decades.

In any case, the inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only part of the basis of the argument for intelligent design. We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems. To quote Quastler again, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."2 Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence—intelligent design—played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer—based on our knowledge of

established cause-and-effect relationships—that an intelligent cause operated in the past
to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.

For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. To establish an explanation as best, a historical scientist must cite positive evidence for the causal adequacy of a proposed cause. Indeed, unlike an argument from ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and
based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.

we know from ordinary experience as well as from the results of scientific experiments and computer simulations that intelligent agents do produce large amounts of specified information. Since I had previously shown via a thorough search that no known material process produces this effect, I argued that we can infer design as the best explanation for the origin of information in the cell. The inference to design, therefore, depends on present knowledge of the demonstrated causal powers of material entities and processes (inadequate) and intelligence (adequate). It no more constitutes an argument from ignorance than any other well-grounded inference in geology, archaeology, or paleontology—where present knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships guides the inferences that scientists make about the causes of events in the past.

Formulated as an inference to the best explanation, the argument for design from biological information exemplifies the standard uniformitarian canons of method employed within the historical sciences. The principle of uniformitarianism states that "the present is the key to the past." In particular, it specifies that our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships should govern how we assess the plausibility of inferences we make about the cause of events in the remote past. Determining which, among a set of competing explanations, constitutes the best depends on knowledge of the causal powers of the competing explanatory entities, knowledge that we acquire through our repeated observation and experience of the cause-and-effect patterns of the world.4 Such knowledge, not ignorance, undergirds the inference to intelligent design from the specified information in DNA.

Arguments from ignorance make an obvious logical error. They omit a necessary kind of premise, a premise providing positive support for the conclusion, not just negative evidence against an alternative conclusion. The case for intelligent design as an inference to the best explanation does not omit that necessary type of premise. Thus, it does not commit the fallacy.

Let's take a closer look. In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the
form:

Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.

Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent designargues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA)to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created byan
intelligent designer."5 In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:


Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.


If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument made in this book does not assume
this form. Instead, it takes the following form:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.

Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:

Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.

In addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, the argument for intelligent design as the best explanation also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. This argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition. Instead, it specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not commit the informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance. It's really as simple as that.

THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN

http://www.discovery.org/f/986

Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):
(1) Intelligent agents think with an “end goal” in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by
taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex
and specified information):
“Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’
highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”2

“[W]e have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents-in particular ourselves-generating or
causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code
and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. … Our experience-based knowledge of
information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes
and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.”3
(2) Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems:
“Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of
information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational
configurations of matter.”4
“We know from experience that intelligent agents often conceive of plans prior to the material
instantiation of the systems that conform to the plans—that is, the intelligent design of a blueprint often
precedes the assembly of parts in accord with a blueprint or preconceived design plan.”4
(3) Intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g.,
wheels for cars and airplanes):
“An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there
necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply,
intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently.”5
(4) Intelligent agents typically create functional things (although we may sometimes think something is
functionless, not realizing its true function):
“Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for
decades as random evolutionary noise or ‘junk DNA.’ From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely
unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk.’”6

(1) Biochemistry Natural structures have been found that contain many parts arranged in
intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and
specified information), such as irreducibly complex machines in the cell.
The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. The specified complexity of
protein bonds, or the simplest self-reproducing cell are other examples.8
Yes.
(2) Paleontology Biological novelty appears in the fossil record suddenly and without
similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is the prime example.9

Yes.
(3) Systematics Similar parts have been found in organisms that even Darwinists see as
separated by more closely related forms that do not contain the similar
parts in question. Clear examples include genes controlling eye or limb
growth in different organisms whose alleged common ancestors are not
thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs.10

Yes.
(4) Genetics Genetic research continues to uncover functions for “junk-DNA,” include
functionality for pseudogenes, introns, LINE, and ALU elements.
Examples of unknown DNA functions persist, but design encourages
researchers to investigate functions, whereas Darwinism has caused some
scientists to wrongly assume that non-coding DNA is junk.11

The Inference To The Best Explanation Model

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/a-cumulative-case-for-gods-existence/

One of the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God’s existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. This type of explanation is commonly called “abduction” since it is a type of reasoning that is different from induction and deduction. Some people assert that unless the God of the Bible is a material object that can be verified with one’s five senses, He doesn’t exist. In response, I just mentioned that it is a category fallacy to ascribe sensory qualities to God or fault him for not being visible. Since we can’t see God as a material object, one way to approach this issue is to look at the effects in the world and make rational inferences to the cause of the effect. Hence, we have to look to see if God has left us any pointers that lead the way to finding Him.
One of the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God’s existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. Since we as humans can’t observe God as a material object, one way to approach this issue is to look at the effects in the world and make rational inferences to the cause of the effect. Remember, evidence is always evidence for (or against) something. But as we go forward and present some of the evidence for the existence of God let us remember a few things:
1. Whenever an individual evaluates the evidence for the existence of God, it must be acknowledged that a person’s response to an argument will always be influenced by his/her past and present personal history.
2. Humans are not only intellectual beings, but emotional and volitional creatures as well. Hence, it is folly to divorce the objective and subjective nature of evaluating the evidence for God’s existence.
3.We can’t overlook the fact that sin and a hardened heart can dampen a person’s receptivity to the evidence that is already available to them.
4. Some people have not developed their intellectual virtues to the place where they are in a position to understand and evaluate the evidence for the existence of God.


inductive logic and historical observation...Inductive reasoning is a form of logic that is most characteristic of the scientific method itself, because it moves from the effects to causes which can yield the most likely conclusion for a certain body of data. In historical sciences, where we cannot make tests to find out how things came to be, all we can do is to find out what is, and from there try to find out how it most probably emerged. Evolution is too limited to account for the exceedingly intricate, complex, elegant , intervined, interdependent , irreducible complex, information rich elements we observe and discover in the cell.

Claim: There is no evidence of God's existence. 
Reply: Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"). It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In research, low-power experiments are subject to false negatives (there would have been an observable effect if there had been a larger sample size or better experimental design) and false positives (there was an observable effect; however, this was a coincidence due purely to random chance, or the events correlate, but there is no cause-effect relationship). The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.[3][4]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#:~:text=Argument%20from%20ignorance%20(from%20Latin,a%20fallacy%20in%20informal%20logic.&text=In%20debates%2C%20appeals%20to%20ignorance,shift%20the%20burden%20of%20proof.