“Intelligent Design” is the name given to the idea that the complex functionality and structures seen in nature logically imply that everything was purposefully and specifically designed by an intelligent being.
People who support the Intelligent Design view tend to use a lot of analogies that try to compare man-made objects to the natural world in order to conclude that the same way we “know” that an object was created by human designers can be applied to nature too.
The most common examples seem to be houses, cars, or wristwatches. Proponents of the Intelligent Design argument say that we know that these things were designed and made by humans by their particular construction and complexity, so we can apply the same logic to the natural world and conclude that it had a designer.
Throughout this article I will often abbreviate Intelligent Design as “I.D.”
1) The argument does not define its premise clearly
Proponents of the I.D. argument never explicitly define a standard for what qualifies as having a “design”, “purpose”, being of sufficient complexity to indicate that it had a designer, or how we know that standard is actually reliable. There is no basis upon which to even determine what does not qualify as such.
This means the argument just assumes that everything is evidence for a designer right from the beginning instead of actually evaluating evidence and proving why a “designer” is the most logical conclusion. So the I.D. argument is a circular reasoning fallacy that assumes a particular belief within the premises – without most people even noticing it – and then uses it as evidence to reach that belief as the conclusion too.
In short, the argument is in fact just a masked assertion that God exists, not an argument with any basis in evidence.