Part of a series:
An article from the theistic evolutionist BioLogos Foundation argues that “pragmatically” the argument for design “is in fact an argument from ignorance” because “it seems like you need to test for (lack of) natural explanations to discover irreducible or specified complexity.”5
These accusations bear little resemblance to the actual theory of intelligent design, as put forth by ID proponents. Indeed, if the positive case for ID shows anything, it’s that this objection is incorrect.
ID’s positive arguments are based precisely upon what we have learned from studies of nature about the origin of certain types of information, such as CSI-rich structures. In our experience, high CSI or irreducible complexity derives from a mind.
If we did not have these observations, we could not infer ID. We can then go out into nature and empirically test for high CSI or irreducible complexity, and when we find these types of information, we can justifiably infer that an intelligent agent was at work.
Thus, ID is not based upon what we don’t know — an argument from ignorance or gaps in our knowledge — but rather, is based upon what we do know about the origin of information-rich structures, as testified to by the observed information-generative powers of intelligent agents.
Casey Luskin, “Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections” at Hillfaith (May 17, 2022)
Casey Luskin links to the whole series at this page.
You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin: ID as fruitful approach to science The trouble is, many people would just as soon that research into evolutionary computation anatomy and physiology, and bioinformatics, however fruitful, not be done if it undermines a comfortable Darwinism.