You should be able to articulate at least one reason in the book you refer to why IDer’s are of the opinion their theory is the best way to explain certain features of the universe and living things.
My experience with your suggested approach has always led to criticisms of my “summaries”. Of course they can be criticized, they are only a summary.
That being said, one reason is that we know that intelligent designers exist and can design really neat stuff. We have no actual proof that natural processes can create complex really neat stuff. BTW - the counter argument that usually comes up at this point is that “Here we are, so that proves that evolution did it, somehow.”
You asked me to look at a website, and I did. Are you saying now this website does not contain enough information and I need to read a book? What book exactly? Have you read it? If so, you should be able to give me one example from it in answer to the question I asked. I’m not going the find the answer to my own question.
The book is “Signature in the Cell”. Yes, I’ve read it. You can probably get a copy at your local library.
If you want to dismiss ID on the basis of my humble summaries, and no doubt incomplete understanding, then do so. But wouldn’t it be better to reject it for a good reason?
I haven’t dismissed any arguments for intelligent design. What I dismissed were claims there are no religious intentions and it is unrelated to any interpretations of Genesis. As I am aware, I attempted to back this up with evidence. Therefore, it is not my own assumption. It is also the opinion of many. Of course, if you can cite something I said that I did not back up with evidence, please point it out and will be happy to provide evidence.
There are no doubt some with sinister religious intentions (such as getting people to believe in God). But the methods of ID stand apart from the intentions of those involved, and stand or fall on their own.
The reason many don’t believe in an intelligent designer is because they see no need to. Let’s say for the sake of argument ID proves irrefutably there is an intelligent designer. What is the benefit of knowing there is an intelligent designer? The only benefit I see relates to religious belief. Which is why I say ID cannot claim there is no religious intention in their theory. If there are other benefits to knowing there is an intelligent designer, I’m willing to consider it.
From a scientific perspective, there is a tendency to say “Evolution did it, happened randomly, no purpose at all, just a big accident, end of story.” This would obviously bring science to a halt.
On the other hand, if you assume that e.g. DNA is “designed”, and has many purposes, a person with a questioning mind would try to determine in more detail how the design works, how did the design first appear, who designed it, etc. Answering these questions would obviously be of great benefit. DNA does in fact have attributes for information storage integrity (fault protection, fault correction) which are very similar to those designed by humans. And there are multiple layers of data integrity and encryption. Fascinating stuff.
So are you saying that the only requirement and only purpose of ID is to establish there is an intelligent designer? Nothing more, nothing less?
No, see above.
If so, why do they challenge Neo-Darwinism? The site you gave me a link to states this is the purpose of ID.
I think it is important to realize that ID is not just a “Darwinism alternative.” First, it encompasses much more including e.g. fine tuning arguments in cosmology, etc. Second, ID does not dismiss neo-Darwinism in total. There is little controversy over the data (evidence) itself. IMO the real controversy is the “random” versus “designed or guided” focus. Looking at how chemistry works, how the laws of the universe work, and the mathematics of probabilistic resources, it becomes apparent that “random” just doesn’t get you there - even when natural selection if involved. For natural selection to work, the “random” mutations have to be there to begin with, and there just isn’t enough time or enough “stuff” for it to occur randomly (i.e.without guidance).
What wrong with an intelligent designer who lets random, unpredicted and purposeless mutations occur because he/she/it wants to?
Designs are not random. Random designs don’t work. Designed processes are more efficient.
Atheistic evolutionists don’t hide their agenda. They are openly hostile to belief in God and religion. Theist who accept evolution are quite open about their intentions of exploring the compatibility of the Genesis account and the findings with modern science. I don’t think it’s out of turn to expect IDer’s with an agenda to be honest about it, particularly if they are very religious. Dishonesty looses credibility. That’s so what.
OK. But personal agendas are not the same as professional agendas. We all have personal agendas, don’t we?
OK, I’ll give you that one. Perhaps it’s not that the actual theory of ID is based on literal interpretations of Genesis, but rather a large percentage of IDer’s believe Genesis should be interpreted literally.
Those are religious beliefs which have nothing to do with ID.
(based on the products I designed however, one might not ascribe to them the title of “intelligent” design - but then, everybody has a pointy-hair boss 
)