I don’t know if this has been pointed out before, but I’ve realized another big flaw amongst the many in the Intelligent Design argument.
Intelligent Design proponents argue lamely that an archaeologist digging up a stone statue can rightly conclude that the object was created by ‘a designer’. This is the same argument referred to by Richard Dawkins, citing William Paley, who drew a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker, hence the complexity of life is supposed to compel the belief in ‘a creator’.
These arguments always specify ‘a designer’ or ‘a creator’, and my point simply is that if we are to pursue that reasoning logically, a watch is the work of a variety of craftsmen, designers, metalworkers, glassworkers, etc. many are involved in making it. A piece of sculpture isn’t necessarily the work of one individual, and simply seeing its complexity cannot tell us how many were involved in making it.
So the Intelligent Design argument begins to fall apart simply on that point, creationists cannot explain why they say ‘a designer’ - they can then only fall back on scriptural ‘evidence’, which they cannot offer as being scientific.
So we have to ask them ‘Why only one?’