Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Agreed. But you have not yet shown that this particular question cannot be so resolved. You are in danger of making a god of the gaps argument here. If it does turn out that science is able to resolve this question, then your small god has no place to hide any more. “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

I admire Bonhoeffer but he was fallible - like all of us. It is more logical to believe - if religion is brought into the discussion (which is unnecessary) - that we can find God inevery aspect of reality- in what we know and what we do not know; God also wants us to realize His presence in every aspect of reality, not only in unsolved problems but also in those that are solved.

 

[tonyrey]

You have a strange idea of “ad hominem”. I was criticising Dembskian ID, not Dr Dembski.

You presented the following argument:

I can see why they do it, to keep everyone in their “big tent” while simultaneously avoiding any mention of God so as to avoid the US Constitution’s bar of teaching religious doctrine in schools.

You are casting aspersions on **their motives **instead of discussing the issue.

Unlike an information system your specification is arbitrary.

By what measure? What is the objective set of criteria use to distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary specifications?

Shannon information can be produced without intelligence. Kolmogorov information can be produced without intelligence. What measure of information are you using that can only be produced by intelligence? Be specific please.

Origin and meaning:

late 14c., “act of informing,” from O.Fr. informacion, enformacion “information, advice, instruction,” from L. informationem (nom. informatio) “outline, concept, idea,” noun of action from pp. stem of informare (see inform). Meaning “knowledge communicated” is from mid-15c.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=information
Whether the knowledge communicated is understood or not is irrelevant: the communication of knowledge presupposes intelligence.

Knowledge of all types of information also presupposes intelligence - and intelligence itself cannot be explained in terms of physical causes.

 

[tonyrey]

*You are reifying purpose. Since this reification is an error, there is nothing to explain. An early embryo, a zygote, has not brain. Without a brain, is cannot form any purpose.

Irrefutable! To argue that rationality is reducible to non-rational events is to undermine one’s own argument.

 

[tonyrey]

“In the absence of a brain, hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form H2O, not H6O or HO2. When you calculate the odds of a few billion atoms behaving in exactly that way, you get the usual hugely improbable number. Chemistry does not require design, all it requires is valency.”

I’m not sure I understand your point, so I am going to respond based on what I THINK you are saying.

Atoms and the electrons in each valence do not happen by chance. One elemental atom can never be another elemental atom. When atoms share electrons in the outer valence to form chemical changes, what causes these electrons to do so? Some scientists say it is a magnetic/electronic attraction. Well then, what causes the attraction? I believe in the Big Bang theory–but not the conventional concept of it. I believe that God created all things from nothing and brought them into being…perhaps a BIG BANG. It seems to me that as we go back further and further, at some point there has to be a question of WHAT CAUSED THE FIRST CAUSE? There can only be ONE FIRST CAUSE because if there isn’t one cause, then whatever came before it IS the FIRST CAUSE. Scientists have not been able to answer that question because that would mean considering a Creator or Designer. To many scientists, that is anathema.

I am not a scholar or a philosopher. I can’t debate the issue on the scholarly level that most appear to do here. All I know is that until the First Cause can be scientifically determined absolutely (which would be to acknowledge a Supreme Being as creator), I simply believe that God exists, created all things out of nothing, and keeps everything in existence and in perfect harmony.

I’m delighted to point out that you don’t have to be a scholar or a philosopher to grasp the truth! Very often specialists don’t see the wood for the trees…

 

[rossum]

The Big Bang was a macroscopic event!

You need to learn more cosmology. Prior to inflation, the Big Bang was quantum sized. Inflation increased the size of the new universe by a factor of 10[sup]78[/sup].

I regret to say that specific religious beliefs are irrelevant to a philosophical discussion about Design.

And the belief in the existence of non-material spiritual designers is not religious?

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

It has already been demonstrated that even a multiverse requires a beginning…

Invoking a physical reality as an explanation of itself is a logical fallacy. No matter how many things we learn about the universe, no matter how many new properties, forces, fluctuations, etc. we discover, it will never eliminate the possibility of those things having been created. The only honest way to address it is via statistics: i.e. given what we know, how likely is it that our universe came about by chance versus having been designed? Direct evidence of divine activity within the universe is irrelevant to the question.

Precise statistics are not always possible but that does not invalidate all non-mathematical estimates of probability. Otherwise much science would be unscientific!

 

[rossum]

You are casting aspersions on their motives instead of discussing the issue.

Their motives are perfectly good political motives, and serve to help the political aims of the ID movement, as set out in the Wedge Document. Their actions are an indication that the political side is more important to them than the scientific side. Dr Dembski pointed this out in a speech to the RAPID Conference in 2002:

Although ID as a scientific program stands logically prior to ID as cultural movement, this logical priority does not imply temporal priority.

…

Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.

Source: Becoming a Disciplined Science

Origin and meaning:
etymonline.com/index.php?term=information
Whether the knowledge communicated is understood or not is irrelevant: the communication of knowledge presupposes intelligence.

I look out of my window, and I see that rain is falling. This communicates the knowledge, “It is raining today.” How does this communication of knowledge indicate intelligence?

Knowledge of all types of information also presupposes intelligence - and intelligence itself cannot be explained in terms of physical causes.

Falling rain can be explained by purely physical causes; no extra intelligence is required.

Here is Dr Dembski again:

I’m afraid I don’t agree with your first premise here. Whenever I set the groundwork for information in a discussion of ID, I make clear that information happens when there is a reduction of possibilities. Initially, there is a range of live possibilities. Later, one of these possibilities is realized. Information happens in that reduction and realization.

Now, the individuation of these possibilities and the causal process involved in their realization need involve no external intelligence. Tomorrow, it may rain or it may not rain. Both are live possibilities, and the fact that they are live possibilities does not depend on my, or any other external intelligence, drawing the distinction between rain and no rain. Moreover, the causal processes responsible for rain do not presuppose an external intelligence (at least not obviously so, though one might argue that if God created the world and providentially guides it, intelligence is involved even in the rain that falls).

Source: uncommondescent.com/design-inference/bill-dembski-is-there-any-such-thing-as-information-in-the-abstract-or-is-it-always-information-for-an-agent/

I would suggest that Dr Dembski is a good authority in this case, which “need involve no external intelligence”.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

The Big Bang was a macroscopic event!

You have yet to prove scientifically that quantum theory explains beyond all shadow of doubt how everything - including non-material beings - comes from nothing…

I regret to say that specific religious beliefs are irrelevant to a philosophical discussion about Design.

And the belief in the existence of non-material spiritual designers is not religious?

The existence of non-material reality is not a religious but a philosophical interpretation of reality - like materialism. Moreover, as I have pointed out, in science some events are accepted as necessary postulates even without knowledge of their causes.

 

[tonyrey]

You are casting aspersions on their motives

instead of discussing the issue.
Their motives are perfectly good political motives, and serve to help the political aims of the ID movement, as set out in the Wedge Document. Their actions are an indication that the political side is more important to them than the scientific side. Dr Dembski pointed this out in a speech to the RAPID Conference in 2002:Although ID as a scientific program stands logically prior to ID as cultural movement, this logical priority does not imply temporal priority.

Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.

Source: Becoming a Disciplined Science

It is a common error to equate ID with Design - which is a **philosophical **explanation. It is a common fallacy to claim the (alleged) motives of individuals show that an explanation is false.

Origin and meaning:
etymonline.com/index.php?term=information

Whether the knowledge communicated is understood or not is irrelevant: the communication of knowledge presupposes intelligence.
I look out of my window, and I see that rain is falling. This communicates the knowledge, “It is raining today.” How does this communication of knowledge indicate intelligence?

Physical events like raindrops are not knowledge. Awareness of physical events is knowledge. Knowledge exists in the mind not in the material world.

Knowledge of all types of information also presupposes intelligence - and intelligence itself cannot be explained in terms of physical causes.

Falling rain can be explained by purely physical causes; no extra intelligence is required.

“extra intelligence” gives the game away! Explanation presupposes the existence of intelligence.

Here is Dr Dembski again:I’m afraid I don’t agree with your first premise here. Whenever I set the groundwork for information in a discussion of ID, I make clear that information happens when there is a reduction of possibilities. Initially, there is a range of live possibilities. Later, one of these possibilities is realized. Information happens in that reduction and realization.

Now, the individuation of these possibilities and the causal process involved in their realization need involve no external intelligence. Tomorrow, it may rain or it may not rain. Both are live possibilities, and the fact that they are live possibilities does not depend on my, or any other external intelligence, drawing the distinction between rain and no rain. Moreover, the causal processes responsible for rain do not presuppose an external intelligence (at least not obviously so, though one might argue that if God created the world and providentially guides it, intelligence is involved even in the rain that falls).

Source: uncommondescent.com/desig…-for-an-agent/
I would suggest that Dr Dembski is a good authority in this case, which “need involve no external intelligence”.

You are misrepresenting his argument. Rain drops are not necessarily an example of intelligent design (as he points out). On the other hand DNA is because - unlike raindrops - it is an extremely complex set of instructions which are essential for an individual’s biological development. Out of the immense number of possible sets of instructions one is realized. Information happens in that reduction and realization.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I said that I had a problem with Dembskian ID in this regard. I did not say that made it false, merely that I had a problem with it avoiding an important question. I gave the reasons for its falsity further on – the difficulties in deciding what is, and what is not, a valid specification.

You are avoiding the crux of my argument. Specified complexity requires a specification. By changing the specification I can change the measured value of specified complexity. Using the specification, “a system for clotting blood”, the bacterial flagellum has zero specified complexity, because it does not clot blood. Using the specification, “an outboard motor for a cell”, the bacterial flagellum has some non-zero value of specified complexity. The value depends on the specification chosen. That makes the value subjective, and hence of very little use in science. Both these specifications are valid, and used by Professor Behe as examples.

When we consider information specified in a code of some kind, the specification can be objectively validated when the code is broken. The Rosetta Stone for example served to change the zero value of the specified complexity of hieroglyphics into great value in understanding ancient Egyptian culture. Hieroglyphics may have been intelligently designed with great specified complexity, but this is a far cry from being “subjective” in your sense of the word.

Likewise, decoding the information in DNA is proving invaluable in medical research and biological research. The code in DNA is far from having zero value even though it is highly specified and far from subjective.

The question remains whether the specified complexity in DNA could have arisen through chemical and physical regularity. The answer to that question is increasingly being found to be “highly unlikely” or even “no chance.” Douglas Axe has determined the probability of assembling a 150 amino acid chain into a minimally functional protein to be about the same as finding a single atom in the entire Milky Way. A typical cell requires several hundred proteins, many much longer, to say nothing of the DNA and RNA structures that store and translate the codes for the proteins, functions and replication processes requisite in the cell. The likelihood of this highly coordinated, highly functional specificity arising from natural processes is simply unimaginably improbable.

By the way, you still haven’t provided an answer as to whether you would characterize the ant message of “ROSSUM WE WILL INVADE YOUR HOUSE…” as necessarily having some kind of intelligent origin. Yes or no?

You are avoiding the crux of my argument! :tsktsk:

It is also worth pointing out that Dembski’s claim that regular or chance processes cannot produce specified information is incorrect.

I pick as my specification: “The text of the King James Bible.”

I examine a long text string that starts:

“Va gur ortvaavat Tbq perngrq gur urnira naq gur rnegu. …”

This fails to meet the specification, since it is obviously not the text of the KJV, and so contains zero specified information. It contains information, but the information does not meet the specification and hence there is zero specified information.

I now apply a regular process, ROT13, to the text, and the result is:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. …”

This now meets the specification, and so contains a large amount of specified information. A regular process has produced a large amount of specified information from a string containing zero specified information. Dembski’s claim is incorrect. Regular processes can produce specified information, and do so in large quantities.

You must realize this is duplicity on your part. The string containing what you claim to be zero specified information (Va gur ortvaavat Tbq perngrq gur urnira naq gur rnegu. …) contains the same specified information as the KJ quote but merely coded so that when the ROT13 decoder is applied you get the form of the KJ text. The regular process did not create the information, it merely coded the information in a different form. The medium is not the message, the message simply is encoded differently. This is the same fundamental issue as when you claimed languages are subjective.

It is also duplicitous in another way. You are intentionally attempting to conflate regular or chance processes with “natural” processes to implicitly claim that since your ROT13 as a regular process can create specified information, therefore natural processes can as well. Your argument fails because you have failed to show that the regular process actually creates the specified information, it merely codes it differently after the fact. Dembski terms this “multiple realizability.”

Your position would be like claiming that Google Translate actually creates a new idea by changing a piece of writing from one language into another. I guess you could be fooled into thinking this by a reductionist world view, i.e., that writing is nothing but the words.

Please indicate where he shows his calculations, and how he deals with the effects of natural selection.

rossum

Meyer on Dembski:
Read Chapter 8 - Chance Elimination and Pattern Recognition in Meyer’s Signature In The Cell

The section on Genetic Algorithms in Chapter 13 is also revealing.

Also view for Dembski’s own words.:

youtube.com/watch?v=uuarexO9p0g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[joe370]

Read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”. The evidence for God is so overwhelming that it will shock you. Strobel interviews experts in various fiels, biochemistry, astronomy, physics and many more. Strobel has done free thinkers a great service with this compilation of interviews. Enjoy! Rob

Great book.

 

[joe370]

Hey

Bradski

you said:

You’re presupposing God here. He is the intelligence, therefore order. But as was shown above, the universe was chaotic at the start and is now orderly. It is a reasonable solution to suggest that order will eventuate from chaos as a natural process.

In your opinion, what kick started the universe? I think every atheist agrees that something (universe) cannot come from nothing. Everything made has a maker - right? Or, is the universe the only exception to that rule?

 

[oval]

Is it realized…?

that once science recognized the background radiation and more showing a “type” of BB, (in other words that is all they can say because the tool box in the math does not have equipment to further explore…science was also able to strongly suggest that the existence of gravity would be required to initiate a universe…

and that gravity requires something in order for the force to exist

and that something that gravity requires is an environment which allows for the equation

of…2+2=4

and that this outcome is what design is all about on a massive scale…order…allowing for contrast2…colliding with 2 toward unity 4…IOW order…?

For a universe to happen, order must be in place allowing gravity.

The origin of the order from the outset is a given… which allows what is seen in design or 2+2=4, everywhere in every collision in the universe. Perfect harmony in a perfect reliable consequence to contrast

The design argument is redundant,( characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas) it is over with this discovery because the 2+2=4 is what you guys are making a fuss about in everything including reason…the mind in 2+2=4 is how the mind works.

If writers are still writing books in this, it is for money, popularity and only lower level thinkers who want to sound smart with all kinds of dancing around multitudes of…2+2=4

It is very very simple, if one wants to say order is not required for the universe then we would need to see an interference to the laws which govern the universe. How much more clear can something be…?

If someone wants to say the existence required for the universe, that being order has nothing to do with a Higher Power or aware God…well then that is the argument, not design.

The real question is…what can be said about the equation 2+2=4, or the known reality of this “order” …( I think God obviously

I’m sorry but I think I’m allowed to politely express my thinking here…plus there has been repeated reference to "specialists and experts on more than one occasion.

I realize this is a general public forum, but please have consideration for the general public with respects to so many adamant assertions without proper development…

As a hobby Ive been reading philosophy on line. Many trained and prof experts with many different views. Although assertions and quips are developed out of courtesy rather then simple blind seemingly illogical quips.

Therefore I politely request full credentials including all formal training, exact degree’s acquired, subject of thesis. The reason for this is that the designation is being recieved as true by some in a marked way and I don’t think its moral; in a public forum to elude to this, without bringing the training forward.

My training has been already mentioned, I am completely un-educated. Thankyou

 

[Peter_Plato]

I realize this is a general public forum, but please have consideration for the general public with respects to so many adamant assertions without proper development…

As a hobby Ive been reading philosophy on line. Many trained and prof experts with many different views. Although assertions and quips are developed out of courtesy rather then simple blind seemingly illogical quips.

Therefore I politely request full credentials including all formal training, exact degree’s acquired, subject of thesis. The reason for this is that the designation is being recieved as true by some in a marked way and I don’t think its moral; in a public forum to elude to this, without bringing the training forward.

My training has been already mentioned, I am completely un-educated. Thankyou

I respectfully disagree here. A person’s credentials do not add truth value to statements made. The statements need to stand on their own merit. Are they true? Why or why not? Jesus had no formal credentials but clearly spoke the truth because of Who he was, not because of accreditation from the University of Nazareth. :twocents:

Could you give an example of a problematic statement?

 

[oval]

I respectfully disagree here. A person’s credentials do not add truth value to statements made. The statements need to stand on their own merit. Are they true? Why or why not? Jesus had no formal credentials but clearly spoke the truth because of Who he was, not because of accreditation from the University of Nazareth. :twocents:

Could you give an example of a problematic statement?

No problem

TonyR eludes to expertise in threads. If I am reading and someone suggests they are an expert repeatedly, like everyone my time is import, either bring the suggested credentials forward or refrain from eluding that the posts are coming from a trained source of expert education.

By your argument “the statement needs to stand on its own”… what is the suggestion of expertise standing on ? It is a precise declaration and highly suggestive …moral is moral, leading is leading and fair is fair.

 

[oval]

I’m not trying to create a hassle. I would in fact say Ive noticed many expert highly educated viewpoint to be irrational,example the Harris fellow.

I would like to be able to distinguish if this presentation is the Catholic expertise idea per thought out dialog in a discourse. A very simple and polite question. If prof educated Catholic on-going dialog is only translated onto such a subject, I truely think there would be a massive difference in ongoing contribution in a subject such as this…as we know everyone thinks in very unique ways in this type of life question. If I come on and say I have a Master’s in philosophy that usually suggests I have formal training in science as well…as thats what the recognized University’s require. Very politely speaking, it is leading.

 

[rossum]

You have yet to prove scientifically that quantum theory explains beyond all shadow of doubt how everything - including non-material beings - comes from nothing…

First, your understanding of science is insufficient. Science can never prove anything “beyond all shadow of doubt”, since everything in science is provisional. Newton’s theory of gravity was never proved “beyond all shadow of doubt” which is just as well, because it was replaced with Einstein’s theory.

Second, you are making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of the universe:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

• Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Since the total energy of the universe is zero, then the universe is nothing from nothing, and there is no problem explaining it. Zero energy from zero energy is perfectly possible.

It is a common error to equate ID with Design - which is a **philosophical **explanation.

You are reifying again. That capital letter on “Design” is a dead giveaway. I am far more interested in scientific explanations than philosophical ones. It is on the scientific level that ID fails, because it puts far too much emphasis on its political purposes and too little on its scientific purposes. Dr Dembski pointed out the problem in 2002, and ID has not made a lot of scientific progress since.

Physical events like raindrops are not knowledge. Awareness of physical events is knowledge. Knowledge exists in the mind not in the material world.

We disagree. The human mind is part material and part immaterial.

“extra intelligence” gives the game away! Explanation presupposes the existence of intelligence.

I presume the existence of human intelligence. I do not presume the existence of a second intelligence ‘sending’ the knowledge that the human intelligence derives from observation. Knowledge is not a conserved quantity.

You are misrepresenting his argument. Rain drops are not necessarily an example of intelligent design (as he points out). On the other hand DNA is because - unlike raindrops - it is an extremely complex set of instructions which are essential for an individual’s biological development. Out of the immense number of possible sets of instructions one is realized. Information happens in that reduction and realization.

We agree. Random mutation produces an “immense number of possible sets of instructions”. Natural selection reduces that set to only those that can successfully reproduce. That is how evolution produces the information seen in DNA.

Bears may have random mutations for different shades of fur. In the Arctic, the bears with the palest fur catch more prey and so survive better and have more cubs. Information is transferred from the environment into the bears’ genomes.

rossum

 

[rossum]

When we consider information specified in a code of some kind, the specification can be objectively validated when the code is broken.

In some cases, but not in others. The One Time Pad, used correctly, is completely unbreakable. It is unbreakable because without prior knowledge of the key, all possible messages of that length may be present.

However, you example has a more general problem, that of a prior specification. Dr Dembski, rightly, likened a post-hoc specification to painting the target round the arrow after you have fired it. The specification has to come before the calculation, not after it. You cannot validate the specification after the event. Any validation must be done before the event.

The question remains whether the specified complexity in DNA could have arisen through chemical and physical regularity. The answer to that question is increasingly being found to be “highly unlikely” or even “no chance.” Douglas Axe has determined the probability of assembling a 150 amino acid chain into a minimally functional protein to be about the same as finding a single atom in the entire Milky Way.

Does Dr Axe’s calculation include the effects of natural selection? If it does not, then his calculation is useless. His result is also suspect, since it is relatively easy to find functional ribozymes in the lab from a soup of random RNA. See Structural diversity of self-cleaving ribozymes for just one example. Agreed, these are usually shorter than 450 bp, but they are far closer to the probable origin of life than Dr Axe’s amino acid chain. Real life experiment confirms that Axe’s calculation is overly pessimistic.

You must realize this is duplicity on your part. The string containing what you claim to be zero specified information (Va gur ortvaavat Tbq perngrq gur urnira naq gur rnegu. …) contains the same specified information as the KJ quote but merely coded so that when the ROT13 decoder is applied you get the form of the KJ text.

You are changing the specification mid-calculation. Once you pick a specification, then you have to stick to it through t the end of the calculation. If I can change specifications arbitrarily in mid-stream then I can easily get any result I want out of the calculation.

My example shows that specified information can be created by a regular process. The ROT13 string does not contain the same specified information, since it meets a different specification: “The ROT13’d text of the KJV”. If arbitrary changes of specification are allowed, then I can change the specification to: “The list of all even prime numbers greater than two.” which will instantly reduce all values of specified information to zero.

Once you have picked a specification, then that specification must remain the same throughout the entire calculation. Given that reasonable condition, then my ROT13 example shows clearly that a regular process, ROT13, can create arbitrarily large quantities of specified information.

It is also duplicitous in another way. You are intentionally attempting to conflate regular or chance processes with “natural” processes to implicitly claim that since your ROT13 as a regular process can create specified information, therefore natural processes can as well.

I took the trichotomy of regular, chance and design processes from Dembski’s explanatory filter. If you have a problem with that classification, then I suggest you take it up with him. There are also plenty of examples of genetic algorithms producing specified information, such as: “An efficient solution to the Travelling Salesman Problem.”

Meyer on Dembski:
Read Chapter 8 - Chance Elimination and Pattern Recognition in Meyer’s Signature In The Cell

The section on Genetic Algorithms in Chapter 13 is also revealing.

Also view for Dembski’s own words.:

youtube.com/watch?v=uuarexO9p0g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thanks for the references.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Once you have picked a specification, then that specification must remain the same throughout the entire calculation. Given that reasonable condition, then my ROT13 example shows clearly that a regular process, ROT13, can create arbitrarily large quantities of specified information.

I took the trichotomy of regular, chance and design processes from Dembski’s explanatory filter. If you have a problem with that classification, then I suggest you take it up with him. There are also plenty of examples of genetic algorithms producing specified information, such as: “An efficient solution to the Travelling Salesman Problem.”

Thanks for the references.

You use a very attenuated concept of produced in your argument. Do you understand the idea of “no free lunch?” Genetic algorithm all front load information to “produce” results, no new information is produced.

You still haven’t answered my question RE: the ants’ message to you.

rossum

 

[Jason_Firestone]

The fact that 85% of the members of the National Academy of Science do not agree with ID, leads me think think the assertion that the evidence is just slightly less than “overwhelming”.
Most of the space in the universe has no life, most of the time of the universe (zero to 80 decimal places), will have no life, most of the genetic material in our genes is left-over “junk”,
perhaps might lead one to a different view.