We have for concepts:
1- Intelligent Design (ID)
2- Minimal Functionality (MF)
3- Irreducible Complexity (IC)
4- Efficacious Construction (EC)
Concept 4 is perhaps better known as "mechanisms" for which Darwinian Evolution
only offers scientirrific stories, IMHO. Dawkins believes evolution is able
and possibly 2 without 1. I think they all must somehow go together.
I'm a sympathizer of ID. My problem is that everything in nature is to me ID.
Not everything is to me IC, however, but that's ok. I see a problem with ID
think it is philosophical in nature. It has to do with the origin the laws of nature.
The laws of humanity as well as the moral laws of God *can be broken*,
contrastingly though, the laws of nature *cannot be broken* (God does not
laws of nature when He performs miracles, He simply suspends them, or "adds"
temporary new laws (that's how I see it)).
Now, anyone can argue that since there are laws that rule nature which cannot be
broken, nature consequently displays order and the "appearance" of
design due to the constraints imposed on matter/energy in space/time by these
unbrakeable laws. To me this is not a problem because I believe that the laws are
not just a given (or taken for granted), but were intentionally given by God.
However, for the nontheist the story is different, she would rather attribute the
laws of nature to anything else but a Creator - this is the philosophical
nature of ID
I mentioned above. This problem, however, opens a valid avenue of inquiry. Could
all the order and appearance of design in nature, all the wonderful structures
and functions, be explained solely on the basis of natural laws exerting their rule
on matter/energy through space/time? - IDers answer this question negatively,
Most theists don't attribute all the design (or the appeareace of design)
they see in nature to the sole work of the laws of nature on matter/energy
through space/time. If this were so the intelligent designer would appear to
different thanthe laws of nature (a form of pantheism). IDers believe
that besides the laws of nature, matter/energy and space/time, the intelligent designer
also had something to do "directly" with life forms. So, again, IDers must
show that the
designs in life could not have been produced naturally - a difficult task.
For the believer, I hope, the answer to the problem should be in believing
that the Creator is the source of the laws, of the matter/energy and of the
space/time, in other words, believing the the Creator is the source of all the
creation we witness. That's where the evidence for design is most clear to me.