Losing His Marbles

Some conservatives have this very strange blind spot when it comes to evolution.

Not quite a blind spot. Some conservative just don't believe it. It probably goes hand in hand for us, as it does with Ben Stein per his writings, with our Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. But there are certainly other religions that are nay sayers. I've never seen anyone go after that most sacred of cows, Islam. Oddly, they derive their beliefs from the same events as Christians and Jews, but they get a pass. Perhaps the Derbyshires of the world seek to dodge a fatwa bomber?

Likewise, why don't we ever see luminaries like Derbyshire taking on the religious beliefs of Hindus, Animists, Buddhists, or any other blind spotted folk, who don't believe in evolution, but believe in some other possibility? I know that Stein is more out front and available to take down, but it seems like the easy say out, if the task is to simply, shine the light on our blind eyes.

Yes, I was profoundly disappointed when I viewed the trailer for Stein's new movie. It looks like the same old threadbare, disingenuous creationist twaddle: "we just want to teach the controversy" and "the scientific establishment is suppressing us" and the old favorite "evolution is just a theory!"

...why don't we ever see luminaries like Derbyshire taking on the religious beliefs of Hindus, Animists, Buddhists, or any other blind spotted folk, who don't believe in evolution, but believe in some other possibility?

Because, as far as I know, they're not agitating to change the science curriculum in public schools.

'As is usually the case, his attack on evolution (or as he calls it, "Darwinism") is founded on a profound ignorance of the subject.'

I can't speak for Stein, but my personal experience has been that as I learned more about the subject of evolution, I believed in evolution less.

I will admit that my Judeo-Christian religious beliefs influence my thinking, but I also think a presupposition that the origin of species must be purely materialistic in nature might influence thinking as well.

Cambias wrote:
"...and the old favorite "evolution is just a theory!"

Umm...it is just a theory. A good one. The best we have so far. One I happen to believe in. But it is just a scientific theory.

Nothing in science should be treated as gospel. If a better theory comes along, then I'll accept that one until yet a better one comes along, and then, etc...

I also think a presupposition that the origin of species must be purely materialistic in nature might influence thinking as well.

Of course it does. If you don't accept that, you don't accept one of the fundamental precepts of science. It may be that evolution is wrong, but it's the consensus scientific explanation for the origin of species, and not alternative has been put forth. "Intelligent Design" isn't a theory--it's merely a critique of a theory (and generally a very poor one).

Kayawanee, I think that the point was that it's meaningless to say "it's only a theory," because there's nothing wrong with theories, and to say so (again) betrays a fundamental ignorance of science and how it works.

I've never seen anyone go after that most sacred of cows, Islam.

That may be true but I question the premise. At what point did this become so important to Christians? I thought most of the Old Testiment was sort of old hazy fables and myths and it was the New Testiment that was really important to Christians. So why draw the line in the sand on Darwinism?

Why not say God wrote the spec in 6 days, he's bright and not a micromanager so why wouldn't he create an adaptable system instead of dumping everything on the planet at once in some sort of death match?

The problem is a tricky one that a lot of otherwise intelligent people run into. Some religions, such as certain kinds of Christianity (to choose the most relevant example), unquestionably have value. That doesn't mean that they don't also contain many elements which have negative value. It is often difficult for people who appreciate the value that a religion offers to understand this distinction and to be able to use the parts that have value and ignore the parts that don't. Organized religion doesn't help much here, because it typically has self-protection mechanisms in place which discourage free thinking and discourage pick-and-choose belief.

The problem is a tricky one that a lot of otherwise intelligent people run into. Some religions, such as certain kinds of Christianity (to choose the most relevant example), unquestionably have value. That doesn't mean that they don't also contain many elements which have negative value. It is often difficult for people who appreciate the value that a religion offers to understand this distinction and to be able to use the parts that have value and ignore the parts that don't. Organized religion doesn't help much here, because it typically has self-protection mechanisms in place which discourage free thinking and discourage pick-and-choose belief.

I will admit that my Judeo-Christian religious beliefs influence my thinking, but I also think a presupposition that the origin of species must be purely materialistic in nature might influence thinking as well.

I don't understand. I would have thought that God as traditionally presented in philosophy is the ultimate materialism. And so anything he does is purely materialistic. So you're saying that one can die, go to heaven, and yet still be unable to prove that God exists? Astounding.

Ok, I'm tired of being lumped in with religious fanatics every time I question Darwinism. So please try and answer this without name calling or referring to anything negative. Note I am a scientist and engineer.

I have a problem with Evolution. First, let me be clear. There is no argument that evolution takes place within a species - that is measurable and it is a fact. However I have a problem with evolution from less complex to more complex - entropy keeps getting in my way. Everything in nature tends to become less ordered over time. So how to single cells evolve to more complex cells and unilaterally overcome entropy? I am aware of MEP, but again that strikes me as a case of trying to fit entropy to evolution instead of looking for a better theory.

In general, I view evolution as a theory that is similar to Newtonian Physics. It works within certain constraints but then it seems to fall short.

The terrible problem with "scientific consensus" is that it stops genuine research. If you dare to challenge the doctrine of evolution then you are branded a heretic and blasphemer. Hmmm ... now who is the religious fanatic.

In any case that is my concern with evolution!

Everything in nature tends to become less ordered over time.

Really? Ever watch a plant grow from a seed, or an animal grow from an embryo?

The Second Law argument against evolution is utterly fallacious. Entropy can be reduced locally, and life is intrinsically a negentropic process.

I agree with Anonymous. What's missing is that the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun and deep space act as temperature sinks. Life exists by increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

As I see it, evolution consists of two stages, a shuffling and mutation of inheritable traits and selection, a winnowing of the previous generation. Selection is what actually increases the information content of a lineage of organisms.

I'm surprised that Ben Stein is so highly thought of. I've been leery of him since the late-1980s, when he was a prominent, and I think intellectually dishonest, critic of Michael Milken. There is more than a bit of Ann Coulter-style media whore about him. I'm surprised to learn that he takes a position on evolution, but I'm not surprised to hear that his position is strange, willfully contrary and logically weak.

Sorry, Karl, that wasn't meant to be "Anonymous." It was me...

Gah I seldom disagree this much. here goes. This is a subject where I usually end up disagreeing with creationists and darwinists alike. I really ought to know better but hey what can I say, I'm stupid too ^_^

Bias: I'm not a creationist and I'm not even a christian (although I used to be years ago --if not a decade by now). Still I'm religious and have a belief in God (but I'm not the least worried about God in respect to science, I don't see a contradiction no matter what science shows, disproving God itself is beyond it at any rate). I don't really care about Intelligent Design or Evolution (they're most likely both wrong --the only question is "how much?").

Rand Simberg responded to:
"I also think a presupposition that the origin of species must be purely materialistic in nature might influence thinking as well."

Rand Simberg wrote:
"Of course it does. If you don't accept that, you don't accept one of the fundamental precepts of science. It may be that evolution is wrong, but it's the consensus scientific explanation for the origin of species, and not alternative has been put forth. "Intelligent Design" isn't a theory--it's merely a critique of a theory (and generally a very poor one)."

And went on to write:
"Kayawanee, I think that the point was that it's meaningless to say "it's only a theory," because there's nothing wrong with theories, and to say so (again) betrays a fundamental ignorance of science and how it works."

What really set me off was this part:
"Of course it does. If you don't accept that, you don't accept one of the fundamental precepts of science."

That's flat out wrong although I suspect it could simply be poorly worded. What one does not accept is: a fundamental limit of the scientific method. "Pure materialism" is not a fundamental precept of science! (Although I can hear the "mathematics is not science" crowd wildly cheering you on ^_^ but this is a separate debate of general importance). However the scientific method applies to "pure materialism" i.e. the empirical (and what else it might also be used on is contentious as alluded to). There is a huge difference in the meaning between the two different statements and the original erroneously worded statement would rightfully have any competent Philosopher of Science foaming at the mouth (I promise, well ok except for the anti-math guys of course but perhaps even most of them). Apologies if this is my inner Philosopher of Science over-reacting but I really think the point is crucial.

Next up:
""Intelligent Design" isn't a theory--it's merely a critique of a theory (and generally a very poor one)."

No, what Intelligent Design was before it got muddied down by creationists and darwinists alike was not at all like it is portrayed (wrongly) by both of them now. ID was intended as a supplement to Evolution; you can not have ID without Evolution at its foundation, doing otherwise is complete gibberish. This is quite clear if you look at what ID originally was and the arguments and partial criticisms it made: it claimed Evolution was not enough to explain some examples of complex evolution (small e). It did not seek to replace Evolution as a whole until the ****** got involved (although the originator could have been a bit more politically nimble to avoid the fate it has gotten).

As to the Evolution debate itself it really makes no sense to discuss it without separating macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is empirically supported (I'll avoid the word "verified" since I have my PhoS hat on), macro-evolution is speculative.

From a purely Philosophy of Science vantage point macro-evolution is no more scientific than ID and might even be less so (some would even claim much less so and it's tempting to agree). The main concern lies with testability/falsifiability and the irony with that of course is that ID still remains more scientific even if proven wrong (falsified) as long as macro-evolution continues to offer little if any possibility of ever being tested (that's how speculative it is and from all the discussions on the topic it seems few are aware of it). I have a link to an excellent paper on that matter but it's not written for a general audience unfamiliar with Philosophy of Science (many of the meanings of the terms can seem deceptively familiar but have very specialized and often counter-intuitive meanings (and even worse some of those terms are common words, don't ask me who thought that was a good idea)) and also it's located somewhere in my maze of bookmarks on multiple machines so I don't feel like digging for it.

Apologies for such a long specialized comment, stepping on toes and smacking the back of heads not intended but probably unavoidable (as said in the beginning I ought to know better and yes I'm stupid).

Stein sounds like he is confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism.

What is macroevolution? Sounds like a poorly defined term to me. How would it differ from a lot of microevolution? As I see it, microevolution is strong support for macroevolution because 1) We have a way to slow change organisms over multiple generations, and 2) we have a huge number of generations in which to make those changes.

Karl that point of view fits nicely into the established school of thought on macro-evolution (follow the link to Modern Synthesis) but as impressive as it is it doesn't avoid or solve any problems at all in relation to testability/falsifiability.

It is a nice model but the same can be/is said about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science requires more than that.

Karl that point of view fits nicely into the established school of thought on macro-evolution (follow the link to Modern Synthesis) but as impressive as it is it doesn't avoid or solve any problems at all in relation to testability/falsifiability.

What problems are there to avoid? My take is that the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is artificial and poorly thought out. It's a logic problem not a science problem.

It is a nice model but the same can be/is said about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science requires more than that.

There's plenty of support for evolution. I don't see plenty of support for claiming microevolution and macroevolution are somehow different. We also have to remember that there's an extensive fossil record combined with genetic data on a lot of species. Incremental change in genes and chromosomes seems the way organisms evolve.

Robert wrote:

ken anthony said: Not one person has responded to my contention that evolution involves new code.

Assuming that your term "new code" means "new patterns", take a look below. Note this string of symbols representing a code: SDAFSDAFSD

Here's the same number of symbols randomly rearranged. Was "new code" created? FDASSDASFD

This is exactly the right question. I've spent the last day thinking about how my use of the word code (which is precisely the right term for my thought) is also the source of confusion.

Code is one of those words that most people probably best understand in it's simplest form which is just translation such as a substitution cypher. ABC means XYZ.

But when any programmer hears the word code they think of a sequence of instructions that perform an action.

Sequences being important. Even the most trivial of observables changes would require tens, hundreds, thousand or more of precisely defined instructions to work. However, the genetic code is abundantly full of places where a single change would have some effect because it's loaded with stop codes which could be considered as on/off switches for long sequences of code. But if you hope this to be a mechanism for evolution, you'd be disappointed because these point only start and stop existing
features. It's how you get brown eyes or blue.

So is randomizing code new? Sure; it also doesn't work. (That's where you get the monkeys typing sonnets and the age of the universe argument which now does apply and the only answer being the multiverse / anthropomorphic reply.)

For example, think of that presumed single point mutation of the pepper moth. If it already exists in the population it's irrelevant. Changing A to A has no effect (note this is in reference to a species gene pool, not an individual that may have a mutation.) A single change can hit an on/off switch or hit code.

Hitting an on off switch would never lead to a new species. Hitting code just breaks it. If by some miracle it didn't break it Then it can't just be any cell, it has to be in either the egg or sperm. Then it has to be viable. Then selection breeds it out. If natural selection combined with sexual reproduction didn't work the rate of natural mutation would overwhelmed all species and we'd hardly have a recognizable species in a few generations. Natural selection prevents change.

Which is simpler to say the pepper moth adapted (which isn't evolution at all since it was already mottled in color) to a darker variety or mutated to a darker variety? Then when it went back to lighter, did it again mutate or simply reshuffle existing code and adapt?

Are we genetically different from apes? Of course. Is that small percent simply a random shuffling of code? That's ridiculous. Yes a random shuffle would be considered new. But it's not a random shuffle. Once we progress from the machine language stage of genetic code to the assembly language and higher representations we will have another way of seeing the mind of god.

My previous post uses reshuffle to refer to two distinct things. I'm hoping the reader is not confused.

Genetic code is NOT computer code. Everytime mitosis occurs or meiosis/"joining of 'egg' and 'sperm'" occurs, errors are inserted. Every time. That is why organisms have variation.

Ken, you make a bunch of assertions. As far as I'm concerned, the relevant three are that first there's this distinction between "code" and "switches" which selectively enable code. Second, you claim without justification that code cannot be changed by evolution. Finally, you claim without justification that there's a difference between evolution and adaptation through inheritable traits and that selection prevents new species creation.

As I see it, there are plenty of mechanisms for altering code. It's fairly stable to change. Sure there are changes that will break some vital biological process, but you can vary a lot of proteins without changing their properties. And the bit about switches not changing a species? Unfounded conjecture. Sure, changing eye color isn't going to create a new species, but all genes not just the trivial ones are switched. As I understand it, you can change the morphology of an organism by changing the timing of those switches, even if exactly the same genes are turned on. Enough such changes and you have a new species.

I don't think you treat selection properly. It is essential to the control of noise in the genome. So yes, selection stabilizes the genome and inhibits a lot of short term change. Yet selection, especially when it changes, is essential to inducing changes and splitting of a species. A particularly important case is what are called "evolutionary bottlenecks". This occurs when the effective population becomes very small. In such a pool, organisms with viable mutations have a much greater chance of survival and propagation, especially if the population rebounds to a much larger size. Then there are plenty of opportunities to find gene combinations that work the mutation.

Karl Hallowell wrote:
"What problems are there to avoid? My take is that the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is artificial and poorly thought out. It's a logic problem not a science problem."

The problem is a lack of repeatable tests; there are none that deal with macro-evolution (and it doesn't matter if you call it macro-evolution or not). Of course it is to be expected considering the scope of macro-evolution but that doesn't mean it can simply be discarded or ignored! What do you mean by calling that a "logic problem"? At any rate it is a science problem because of what the scientific method requires. As I'll get back to later in replying to your comment there are plenty of corroborating evidence but that is not enough on its own.

Artificial? All science is human constructs of explanatory power, that's as artificial as anything gets and a good thing to point out to the hordes of people who confuse the models which have withstood time and repeated testing by the scientific method with actual reality (the differences in detail/resolution and scope alone should be enough to humble anyone).

"There's plenty of support for evolution...."
Yes there is plenty of support, the trouble is that it's all indirect in respect to macro-evolution (or whatever you want to call it).

"...I don't see plenty of support for claiming microevolution and macroevolution are somehow different."

Well that's the ruling consensus even among those who claim it's a difference only in measure, did you read the link I provided? The link is not terribly good but good enough. Pay notice to this part:
"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."

They are chosen established names for differences in focus and subject matter, why do you object to that? Science thrives on specialized language, names, and terms in order to have efficient discussions.

"We also have to remember that there's an extensive fossil record..."

At the link I provided was a link to "Modern Synthesis" which you really ought to read because it gives an overview of the past differences between darwinists and evolutionary ideas and paleontology.

Now as far as the fossil record goes, what of it? It's great for arguing against creationists but as far as arguing for macro-evolution the way it is sometimes applied is more embarrassing than anything else. What do I mean by that? Well here's what: even if you had an even more extensive fossil track record of the emergence of a new species it only continues to show that it has happened (which everybody except creationists already accept) but it doesn't explain how nor does it contribute anything at all to testability/falsifiability.

Groan! ^_^

"...combined with genetic data on a lot of species."

Most of which we have absolutely no clue what does (if anything) or how... but yes eventually genetics might be able to offer up something better and something that can actually be tested empirically but that's a long way off (and even longer if the current trends of excuses persist or stratify --a small death of science).

"Incremental change in genes and chromosomes seems the way organisms evolve."

Yes it seems that way, it is likely. I have no trouble making such words my own because I absolutely agree.

Robert: genetic code is comparable to computer code in the sense that both are instruction sets, that's not controversial at all. Of course further on the similarities break down. You are correct that errors are inserted but it happens all the time (in lots of different ways) during the entire lifespan (for example every time a cell divides and even when it repairs damage).

Bah I need to proofread a bit more closely but anyway when I write "eventually genetics might be able to offer up something better and something that can actually be tested empirically" it's obviously in the context of testing macro-evolution.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

You claim without justification that code cannot be changed by evolution. Not quite, this is addressed by your third point.

you claim without justification that there's a difference between evolution and adaptation Yes, this is my main point and I accept that the burden is upon me to provide such justification.

you can vary a lot of proteins without changing their properties.

Let me be certain I understand you. Are you refering to the fact that of the set of 64 instructions that make up the genetic code many are redundant and serve as drop in replacements for each other?

And the bit about switches not changing a species? Unfounded conjecture. I can accept your assessment. It does require more investigation. Just being your average poor slob myself, I have to wait until some real experts publish there findings.

Sure, changing eye color isn't going to create a new species, but all genes not just the trivial ones are switched. Correct, but I have a point to make with regard to the length of code segments which I'm not ready to present at this time.

you can change the morphology of an organism But what do we actually see? In most cases we're talking about birth defects or extra sets of limbs. You don't see things benign enough not to be selected out that form part of new functions.

Enough such changes and you have a new species.This I believe is the key unfounded conjecture and I propose there is a way of testing it.

I don't think you treat selection properly. Yet, I'm in general agreement with all you wrote that follows this statement.

So is there a way to test the new species conjecture? I think so. Breeding is a form of selection. It's relatively fast if you select the right species which is exactly what scientist have done in the past. All they have to do is breed two groups that are not able to breed back together. Sterile animals don't count. Should be easy if adaption is evolution. Of course if someone breeds the two lines back together that would falsify the claim of a new species don't you think?

Second, I do believe it's reasonable for intelligent people to believe in evolution based on the fact that all life contains the same instruction set. I also believe we will have the answer to this question in my lifetime, yeah or nay. Although as a political football it may never be resolved.

Robert provided this dictionary definition:
Species (Biology): the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Lions and tigers are considered to be two different species. Yet you can breed them to produce ligers. This is a fundamental problem with your dictionary definition. Evolutionist consider the fuzzy definition of species to be a feature. I consider it a bug.

Major restructuring of the classification matrix has occured. You don't see this happening with the periodic table.

Quote from Karl Hallowell:

I don't understand. I would have thought that God as traditionally presented in philosophy is the ultimate materialism. And so anything he does is purely materialistic. So you're saying that one can die, go to heaven, and yet still be unable to prove that God exists? Astounding.

(My answer).

Umm. You may well be right that "God as traditionally presented in philosophy is the ultimate materialism." I'm certainly not a philosophy expert, and I have a real terminology problem.

Take the term "supernatural." This may be an oxymoron. If "nature" is considered to be everything that exists at all, something which is "supernatural" would be something that exists which is not part of everything that exists. Under that definition, God (if you believe as I do that He exists) would be part of nature, since he exists. If you take another direction and say that nature is what God created, then the term "supernatural" might make sense--but it might not make sense for anything except God.

I tend to use the term "materialism" to mean a belief that everything that happens is the direct result of everything that came before, with the results being determined according to universal rules which never change (the universal rules, of course might be quite subtle and/or complicated). As I'm using that word, materialism assumes, a priori, that there is no God and life must have come from the operation of universal rules operating as they always do.

I have come to think that there is no philosophical reason to make this a priori assumption. I also think that the evidence available, as I understand it and interpret it right now, is not sufficient to make this assumption reasonable. It's pretty clear to me that lots of people do think the evidence supports this assumption, but I also think there's lots of people who are making the philosophical mistake of believing that the a priori assumption of materialism somehow has obvious superior validity, and then interpreting all evidence in the light of that assumption.

From Rand:

I also think a presupposition that the origin of species must be purely materialistic in nature might influence thinking as well.

Of course it does. If you don't accept that, you don't accept one of the fundamental precepts of science. It may be that evolution is wrong, but it's the consensus scientific explanation for the origin of species, and not alternative has been put forth. "Intelligent Design" isn't a theory--it's merely a critique of a theory (and generally a very poor one).

(my comment)

I have two separate reactions to "If you don't accept that, you don't accept one of the fundamental precepts of science" and I can't decide if either is a 'correct' reaction.

My first reaction is: 'of course'. In science, we make the assumption that natural laws are at work, and then we investigate. Science properly applied allows us to do repeatable experiments which allow us to discover and understand these natural laws. Science therefore breaks down when natural laws are not solely responsible for everything that happens. Evolution is indeed a theory to explain the origin of species as the result of natural laws at work. I don't have a better scientific theory for the origin of species. I think we need to not make the initial assumption that the origin of species could only have been due to the operation of natural laws. I think there is no philosophical reason to make this assumption, so we have to have the argument about whether the assumption is valid.

My second reaction is: 'but if that's one of the fundamental precepts of science, then a lot of what we call science isn't science.' This point is best illustrated by example. I have read that when pulsars were first discovered, astronomers at least considered the possibility that the signal was from an intelligent extraterrestrial species. They sufficiently examined things to decide that, no, the source of the signal was natural, not a signal from intelligent beings. Was the effort to decide if the signal was of intelligent origin "scientific?" Or is even asking the question "could this signal be a signal from an intelligent species?" an unscientific question? The question "did X occur naturally or by chance or by design?" may or may not be a scientific question but it is a valid one.

I don't think I'm really fit right now to argue the validity of the intelligent design critique of evolutionary theory, but the question is at least valid. It's not absolutely necessary to replace evolution with a different scientific theory if evolution is wrong, because it's possible there is no valid scientific theory (under the definition of strict materialism/naturalism) which accounts for the origin of species. I think it is "scientific" to look at the theory of evolution and take a position that it is not a correct theory because it does not work given what we understand about natural laws (obviously, we can debate that a lot...).

Philosophers of science debate about the definition of science and do not agree. Some consider the question of "what is science" an uninteresting question. Apparently philosophers of science annoy a lot of people.

I also tend to think different kinds of "science" becomes confounded in people's minds. Science involving experiments which can be done and repeated many times is extremely convincing and, in my opinion, where most of the power of science comes from. It's also the easiest kind to turn into engineering. Then you have science based on observations which can be repeated, like watching the planets move in the sky over time, or seeing how tornadoes only come from low clouds. Then you have science where you have observations which are open to interpretation, often because the real world is complicated an messy. I'd put paleontology into this category. Then you've got sciences like psychology and sociology where things are even fuzzier. Some human psychology sure looks like real science to me, with experiments that point to specific understanding of (small) aspects of the human mind. But I don't mentally put psychology and sociology in the same bin as physics and chemistry.

Jeff, here's my take on your last comment:

I think we need to not make the initial assumption that the origin of species could only have been due to the operation of natural laws.

Even if Earth life were seeded by something else natural, it's still all govern by natural law.

They sufficiently examined things to decide that, no, the source of the signal was natural, not a signal from intelligent beings.

You're mixing definitions of "natural". Intelligent beings like humans are philosophically natural even if virtually everything they do isn't considered "natural" in the usual sense. Intelligent life would have been a natural phenomenon and hence a hypothesis of legitimate scientific interest.

I don't think I'm really fit right now to argue the validity of the intelligent design critique of evolutionary theory, but the question is at least valid.

There are a number of natural ways that intelligence could steer evolution. So yes, I consider ID scientific as long as it is restricted to natural, observable intelligence. But there's no current evidence for such a theory. We haven't found a potential intelligent designer nor evidence of activity that can't be explained through evolution.

The best ID proponents have done so far is to point out legitimate gaps in our knowledge of the past, the mechanisms for speciation and adaptation, and various organism traits and components. Showing a gap in knowledge doesn't support any form of ID, or for that matter does it even contradict the current commonly accepted variants of evolution. The scientific process assumes the existence of such gaps in knowledge.

For example, the discussion in this thread about creation of new species through evolution. We aren't discussing the impossibility of new species creation via evolution, but the absence of observations about how new species are created (and some related phenomena like creation of new genes).