Do you think there is any scientific evidence for the intelligent design theory?

I don't want to quote too much, but I'll give a brief summary of a book devoted to that question: "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

He was an atheist who believed in Darwin's theory, unti lhe realized Darwin was wrong. Darwin's evolutionary theory couldn't explain how non-living chemicals could somehow "self-assemble" into the first living cell. While looking for answers, he found:

Astronomers have concluded that the creation of the universe happened extraordinarily suddenly, and should not have occured as it did given ordinary chance.

Physicists note that laws and constants are arranged with intense precision so the universe could sustain life. Again, mere chance would probably not have created the same result. (Astronomers and even astrophysicists at NASA agree.)

Biochemistry has demonstrated that evolution does not explain everything: specifically "complex" organs and structures like cilia or bacterial flagella, because they had to be fully present at once in order to function.

DNA, and any sequential arrangement which is complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function (like books, or even computer code) always implies an intelligent source.

For more specific details, check out the book. I've heard other arguments, but there's simply too much to list here.

Consider the following; DNA is a language that is so complex that alot or most of it has not been decoded yet even with the aid of supercomputers. So...who wrote that complex language. Also man at present cannot write the vast amount of information in such a small area as is found with DNA. There are biological machines found in cells of bacteria. One of these machines has a water-cooled rotary engine that can turn at 100,000 rpm and in a quarter of a turn, reverse direction. There is also a bushing and rotor. My brother own a Mazda sports car that has a water-cooled rotary engine but it can't reach 100,000 rpm or turn in reverse in a quarter turn. Remember that the Mazda was engineered by a group of engineers and had parts machined to specifications. Bacteria is usually said to be the simplest form of life and yet it is very complicated. Look at how bats use radar, bees fly despite being mechanically said to not be possible according to their weight and flying ratio, the list could go on and on.

The best presentation on ID that I have seen is the video, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". See also "The Priviledged Planet" which makes a case that the universe and Earth were made with a purpose in mind. Both are available from Christianbook.com.

Right now, i'm leaning towards the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (AKA Entropy) and its associated tenets found in Murphy's Law. It make more sense and seems rational to me than believing in an "intelligent design" theory. I'll have to read more about that theory to make a better comment, but that's my initial response.

to understand the truth sometimes it helps to understand

the lie that is put up to try to refute it. evolution is a

complete lie. the more one sees the holes in the theory at every turn and unfounded conclusions that are drawn(based on guesses and biases), and the outright frauds perpetrated over the years the more you see that it is just secular faith. faith which most

scientists scoff at others for....this is a big subject to

study to see what I'm saying...try getting some help from Dr.

Mel Molder heard daily on Family Radio.

Oh man you've got a serious question here, can u like rephrase it to layman's term?

Anyway Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. The stated[8] purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."[9]

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence" — physical properties of an object that they assert necessitate design. The most commonly cited signs include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Design proponents argue that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream biological science, which relies on experiment and collection of uncontested data to explain the natural world exclusively through observed impersonal physical processes such as mutations and natural selection. Intelligent design proponents say that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept.

For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the "Logos" is typically credited to Heraclitus (c. 535–c.475 BCE), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[10] Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 BCE) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."[11]

The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae[12] (thirteenth century), design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802), where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.

Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology seeking to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. In the past, examples that have been offered included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacteria flagella (see irreducible complexity).

The earliest known modern version of intelligent design began, according to Dr Barbara Forrest, "in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."[13]

Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from science-teaching has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

Hope this helps goodluck.. =)