It has for a long, long time. As Greg Koukl notes, consider archaeology, forensics and the search for extra terrestrial intelligence. All infer, with good reason, that you can detect whether something happened without being caused by another agent or whether there was an intelligent being behind the creation of something.
The movie “Contact” was a shining example of the self-parody of materialists. While mocking those who believe in Intelligent Design, their litmus test for extraterrestrial life was whether patterns they viewed had evidence of design.
Forensics is all about looking for evidence of design. And archaeology correctly infers design.
We agree there is a gap in understanding some things about the universe. The Darwinists plug it with the “naturalism of the gaps.” They don’t know what caused it, but it definitely wasn’t an intelligent designer. They have no argument other than blind faith. We don’t have the same gap. We logically infer from the evidence that some things — such as life and the indescribable complexity and design of the universe — had to have come from a powerful designer. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins concede that the universe appears to be designed.
I just noticed this over at Uncommon Descent — Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design. It is a great list of responses to the false statements brought by those marching around the Internet with their Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites (TM). Seriously, it is amazing how often you hear those arguments. Those proposing them have either never really sought responses, not listened to the responses or are happy to repeat lies in spite of the evidence.
I added a link to the site as well. It will come in very handy, and is required reading for new commenters.
Uncommon Descent has a contest where they ask, “Why do people refuse to read books they are attacking?” It is about critics of Intelligent Design who don’t even read books before trashing them. (To PZ Myers’ sort-of credit, he threatened to read one of the books — so take that!)
Here are the questions and my suggestions, which already concede that the ID-critic community not only permits such behavior but seems to encourage it (all in the name of science, eh?):
1. Why would a scientist or scholar actually volunteer to do it?
Assuming original sin is too broad, I’ll go with one of these:
A. He loves his worldview more than his integrity.
B. He hasn’t evolved enough to have intellectual honesty.
2. What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?
The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.