Creationists, can you please define "design" in Intelligent Design?

They consider something proof of design if they personally cannot see how simpler forms of a biological structure could have been useful to an organism.

Since they cannot see it, then they assume it could not have existed. It's the classic "argument from ignorance" fallacy.
 
Granite exists, and does not seem to be able to be formed by the hypothesized way it was supposed to be formed. How can one imagine rocks to break down into parts and form themselves into living plants and animals? We have evidence of many 'kinds' that have become extinct, but virtually no evidence of a new 'kind' created by natural processes.
 
Back
Top