Intelligent Design Argumentative Analysis

Darwin would be happy to discover that 150 years after the publication of “On the Origin of Species,” the scientific community remains convinced about evolution—not only on the basis of the evidence he cited, but also based on evidence from sources he could not have dreamed of. But he would not be happy to learn that almost half of the American population do not accept evolution. Moreover, he would be downright dismayed to know that a group of creationists has devised a minimalist form of Creationism—dubbed "Intelligent Design"—in the hope of evading the constitutional barrier to teaching creationism in public schools. I am suspicious about the design-type idea not only due to the fact that ID derives from creationism, but also because of the faulty way its proponents develop their arguments.
The argument of Intelligent Design commences from a denial of evolutionism, which turns Intelligent Design into a sophistry. This argument roots the correctness of its idea on the ground that Darwinism is inconceivable and lacks evidence to prove its correctness. However, a theory should not establish its argument from the denial of another theory. "The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially
a negative argument. It says, 'Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default'" (Eugenie C. Scott, Judgement Day). The fact that no one knows any way to oppose an idea does not prove the validity of that idea.
Furthermore, the concept of Intelligent Design consists of a significant false dichotomy.
Although the idea of Intelligent Design shows only two choices, there exist more in reality. The dichotomy is presented as that either human beings were created as written in the bible, or evolved by chance. The supporters of the Intelligent Design claim that a gap exists in the understanding of some aspects of Darwinism, and that, therefore, the cause must be supernatural. "Evolution may produce small-scale changes—like the different finch beaks Darwin observed—but for humans to come about requires the intervention of some kind of intelligence," asserts Phillip Johnson, the law professor of University California,
Berkley.
It is true that, in some cases, there are only two options. For instance, whether a person is guilty or innocent is a question in which there is no alternative. In this case, we do not need to consider other choices. However, the explanation about the origin of human cannot be concluded to be intelligent design, which attributes the cause of evolution to a supernatural force, merely because of the existence of gaps in Darwinism. The idea contains a significant leap in its logic which presumes that the present unknown facts will never be known. Scholarly researches are cumulative, and gaps always exist in current knowledge.
About a hundred years after Darwin proposed that natural selection acts on new traits appearing in a population, genetics revealed the biological mechanism that gives rise to those traits in the first place. Although Darwin did not even know about molecular biology and DNA, it is in these fields that the most profound evidence of evolution was revealed today. Compared to the 4.6 billion year-old blue planet, modern science has only had five hundred years of history. The fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation for every point of inquiry should not be used as a pretext to put forth an untestable alternative hypothesis.