Originally Posted by Environment Man

Faulty premise. Faulty conclusion. Your premise suggests that believers are simply depending on belief instead of proof. You simply reject the proof as proof, whereas in other aspects of your life such proof would be proof enough.

Intelligent Design does not say 'intelligent' for no reason or 'design' for no reason. It is not belief that a car was designed and constructed by designers and engineers. You did not SEE them assemble it in Japan but you normally assume that the car occurred through I.D. You could track it back to its source and watch cars being constructed but you have not done that.

We can track existence back to the Big Bang (Instant) and reasonably conclude that it 'did not just happen.' That is entirely reasonable and scientific. Science itself utilizes assumptions to get to laws. And logic is used when there is no direct factory to see workers putting together the car (we believe in black holes and dark matter though we cannot directly see or verify them).