Intelligent design is not religious based, though it is supported by religion and the bible. There is absolute evidence for intelligent design which you choose to ignore.
That is what the proponents of ID say. However, the entire modern "ID Theory" had been initially produced by Phillip Johnston, an attorney who had his minions morph a book entitled, "Of Pandas and People" to serve as the principla scientific tome of the entire movement. Unfortunately, that same book ,in an earlier edition, used the word CREATIONSIM where the phrase INTELLIGENT DESIGN had supplanted it in later editions. (the only evidence they needed was a purchase order to their printer/publisher to remove the word CREATIONSIM and instead add the new phrase INTELLIGENT DESIGN) I think that was pretty slick, one book serves two "unrelated diciplines" (Kinda see why Im not buyin much of your claim that science is the foundation of ID?)
AND , as far as I know, Ive never seen any published scientific work regarding "evidence for Intelligence in the Universe", and I check on the Discovery Institutes web page on the subject almot weekly. The Discovery Institute,through the Amandson and Koch foundations had, in 2001, established an entire organizational mechanism to fund scholarly research on ID and Evidence for Intelligence in the Universe. The Foundation , a sub organization of the Discovery Institute has been chomping at the bit to publish anything even semi scholarly. Thats why Ive been following the arguments about cosmology as a "valid sub discipline" of their search for Intelligence. So far its been pretty much arm waving and nothing that even approaches unique evidence has been produced by these "scholars". SO, in order to divert the eyes of guys like me (who work in, or whose work involves DArwinian evolution and sciences involved therein).
A few workers in molecular biology and information sciences have attempted to produce scholarly papers on "Irreducible complexity" or "Defined Information" as evidencefor Intelligent Design. So far, none of these papers, especially in molecular biology, have been able to stand on their own as irrefutable proof that Intelligence is involved in the development of living systems. So far, evolutionary scientists have been able to show the ID workers that theres always an earlier xchemical system that have been manifest in several living sub systems that have given rise to the IDers own examples. Such examples as the eye system, the enzyme cascades responsible for blood clotting, epigenetic DNA , "fossil DNA" and many many others.
The IDers have, cleverly accepted the sciences that have underpinned Darwinian evolution and merely dismissed them as examples of an "intelligent ohysical system" at work. I find that disengenuous since it omits the factors of catastrophic events and the "shuffling" of ecological niches in deep time . These shufflings have each been responsible for a series of mass extinctions and "fiddlings" of the fossil record that clearly show that, if intelligence was behind all that, it was more correctly called "impaired intelligent design"
Im still looking for all this evidence for ID,I admit I havent recently checked the literature base being cataloged by the Discovery Institutes "Center for SCience and Culture". (Id been in the hospital and have been recuperating since September, so Im only now getting my full schedule back in order). Thi non-religious based evidence youve referred to, I would certainly be interested in seeing from a purely scholarly level.
I especially like the types of papers that have been recently published by the evolutionary scientists (and deep time sciences) wherein the initial thesis of the papers are almost presentations that begin with predictions that are based upon the concept of falsification. (For example, when Shubin and Daeschler produced the now famous Tiktaliik rosacea
fossil, they did it by initially stating that
"If evolution is even testable, we should sometime be finding an intemediate fossil that spans the gap between fish and amphibians somewhere in the mid terrestrial Devonian sediments of the world"
So, Shubin and Daeschler took a world geologic map and looked at all the mid Devonian terrestrial outcrop areas (areas that were older yet conformable to the CAtskill Formations of the mid and upper Devonian, where amphibian fossils were already present). They layed out these areas and started to canvass them in the field in order (PURE GRUNT WORK involving almost a decade of dirty field work). They did find one auditory ossicle fossil of a fossil that could have been a later form of a transitional fish (cum) tetrapod but they rally couldnt be sure. It was only a small teaser. They found this in the mid terrestrial Devonian Formations of Pennsylvania near the town of Hiner Pa. It took em maybe 4 years for this teeny find. SO, running low on NSF grant money, they scheduled an expedition to Mid Devonian sedimentary rock banks ofEllsmere Island in Nunivit Territory of Canada.(It was either that or start hunting in the really bleak mountains of East Greenland) Three years pass and SHubin et al are in their last field years after which the money would be gone. Making a long story short,three weeks before they hadda pack it in,They found an almost complete specimen of a fossil that was slightly younger and (from initial inspections) was more "Tetrapody looking" than what was the earlier transitional form Eustanoptheron
. THis fossil filled a niche of sedimentaological position, was suitably advanced of a "fish to amphibian" , and was at the critical 365 million year timeline where scientists were concluding (mostly using deductiver reasoning) that something " transitional should be happening" because tectonically the Iapetan Oxcean basin was moving apart and these intial warm terrestrial streams and estuaries, would, in a few tens of millions of years, evidence the major splitting of the proto ATlantic.
filled the bill for an evolutionary specimen. An intermediate so clearly advanced beyond earlier bony fish that the paleontological community began calling it a "Fishapod".
If your "evidence" that you claim can stand the test of being borne of a "aflsification prediction" Id especially be interested. If, however, its the same old tripe based upon incredulity ,
"The universe is too complex to be just based upon chance". If thats all ya got, Im really not interested cause theres nothing scientific that we could even discuss. It all would boil down to faith and belief in your thesis.