Probably, with possible exception of Mike Gene.
My good friend and colleague Casey Luskin writes:
ID offers a strong positive argument, based on finding in nature the type of information and complexity that, in our experience, comes from intelligence alone. I will explain this positive argument further in Part B of this article. Those who claim ID is nothing more than a negative argument against evolution are misrepresenting ID. –
ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information.
I rarely disagree with Casey Luskin, and Casey echoes the majority view of ID, and I’m clearly in the minority to disagree with him.
However, “positive argument of ID” in some people’s view would mean: “we see the Designer in action creating designs in the present day, therefore the designs of life in the present were made by the same Designer we see creating designs today.” So by that definition, there isn’t a positive argument for Design. I don’t like that situation, but that’s the hand we’ve been dealt…
We can believe Stonehenge is designed because we see designers today that can make similar structures. If we saw the Designer creating new biological life forms or making planets and stars in the present day, that would be a positive case for ID in biology, but we don’t have such evidence in the present day. The only other ID proponent that seems to share my reluctance to promote ID as having a positive case is Mike Gene.
ID is mostly based on analogy and heavy amounts of negative arguments. Negative means: not by chance, not by law, not by mindless evolution.
But let me make a little nuance. Life’s resemblance to human designs is overwhelming, and in many cases surpassing of human design. That is the argument that can be made. We can also criticize mechanisms of chance, law, physics, and chemistry as being the sole source of the designs in life.
No need to start debates about whether or not ID makes positive arguments, it’s somewhat irrelevant. Purely negative arguments have been used in math, so a purely negative approach is not invalid in and of itself. Assume for the sake of argument that ID makes no positive arguments, does that somehow prove mindless evolution true? No.
1. Stephen Meyer unwittingly described my view of ID:
ID is a quasi scientific historical speculation with strong metaphysical overtones. I posted this just in case there are like-minded ID proponents out there that share mine and Mike Gene’s view.