Greetings to all!
As I publish this topic, I am particularly curious to hear from those on this forum who affirm evolution. Please share what you would consider to be a good/plausible argument for intelligent design.
Nota bene: your response does not (necessarily, I suppose) mean that you endorse said argument (or ID), of course. Nonetheless, I look forward to reading your thoughtful responses!
First you’ll have to disambiguate what you mean by “Intelligent Design”. Creationism? Divine tinkering? Long-term direction? Artificial selection? Front-loaded abiogenesis? Genetic programming? Something else?
Jesus rose from the dead, therefore I trust the Bible, which tells me that through Jesus all was made that has been made. Ergo design.
Playing devilled advocaat: how did you determine that Jesus rose from the dead independently of the bible such that you could obtain that trust?
I think it will ultimately be more interesting to let respondents define what they mean by “Intelligent Design” in their answers. So, please share arguments for whichever version you wish. Better yet, share arguments for more than one version. 
Evidence of the Ressurection has been discussed many times elsewhere. For an overview: Peace Be With You.
For the purpose of this thread, which is on a different topic, just grant me that it’s possible to come to affirm the Ressurection before affirming design.
I think that you now would have to explain what you mean by intelligent design. Is it enough just to affirm that God is somehow, in some vague way, involved in evolution?
It seems to me that Scripture tells me who created all things, but not the details of how. Science gives information about how, without clarifying how God was involved. I’m okay with that uncertainty.
How much “created all things” is necessary? Must God have intended all of evolution to turn out exactly as it did? Must he have intended malaria and smallpox?
to me its the self replicating watch argument. according to evolution if a watch is made from organic components and have a self replicating system we need to conclude a natural process because it has living traits. but we know that even a self replicating watch is evidence for design. thus we can conclude design also for a livng things that are no less complex than such a watch.
Evolution says absolutely nothing about watches, organic or otherwise. You have it confused with natural theology.
Perhaps you should stop reading what creationists say about evolution and start reading what evolutionists say instead.
I don’t have anything specific in mind, but I think any good argument should be a positive one (NOT “evolution cannot do this”) that incorporates positive and negative controls into the experimental program. Positive controls that show that the argument or experiment can reliably detect design. Negative controls to show that the argument or experiment is not prone to falsely identifying design.
@scd above lays out a positive argument, which is nice. What is missing from @scd’s example are the controls. This would be a good argument if positive AND negative controls were described, or if the difficulties in crafting suitable positive and negative controls were discussed.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe - Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, #2)
sure. here is what prof dawkins says about that: " “ Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”
or: “We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe”
Neither quote even mentions watches, organic or otherwise. They certainly don’t say evolution says anything about watches.
P.S. I don’t think for a moment that you got those quotes direct from Dawkins’ books. I think you got them from a creationist quote-mine site. Correct?
you tell me what you think. should we check it together?
why do you think he called his book “the blind watchmaker”?
I think you got them from an on-line creationist quote-mine site. Your response suggests I’m correct.
Because he was alluding to the arguments of natural theology.
If you can find anything by Dawkins to justify this: “according to evolution if a watch is made from organic components …” I’ll listen. So far you haven’t.
Good arguments for “ID” - I’ll let you know when I see one.
The two pieces of evidence that I find most convincing for the existence of an intelligent designer:
The second is potentially falsifiable, although current research is still a very long way from that point, in my opinion.
@swamidass has brought up what I believe is the best evidence that the “intelligent designer” is the Christian God.
and you are wrong about that. here is “the blind watchmaker”. check out page 22 and tell me what you see:
Details of the design and manufacturing process would be a good start. Blueprints, architectures and prototypes would be better.