I agree the ID needs to make a positive case. Unfortunately, most of the proposals assert the negative, i.e. that certain evolutionary mechanisms cannot do ‘x, y or z’, or that the evidence for common descent between certain groups is indeterminate. ‘Specified complexity’ and the several different versions of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ are largely based on negative arguments.
Are there positive propositions?
I recall one case where some people were trying to compare patterns of human design to systems found in nature but as far as I know, that hasn’t gotten anywhere. That would have been discussed by Dembski in his blog in the early 2000s, I think. That it hasn’t progressed isn’t surprising. In my mind, the systems expressed in living organisms have traits that appear very unlike typical products of human design. Also, attempts at classification for comparison didn’t look like they would go anywhere.
The notion of ‘No junk DNA’ is promoted as a positive prediction for design but unfortunately, there seems to be no explanation or ‘first principle’ basis for that prediction. Whether junk DNA would exist in a genome under ‘design principles’ depends entirely on how and when the design is implemented and whether any sort of drift would be actively curtailed by a designer. If design is via ‘front-loading’, junk DNA would be expected.
Unfortunately, it seems one really can’t make design arguments in vacuo. To create a reasonable science of design or at least positive case for design, one needs to posit specific propositions about how a designer operated and then derived expected outcomes on those bases Then those expectations need to be put forth, tested, evaluated and critiqued for their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe, that will catch on within the movement but it’s rare and it’s lost almost entirely in the noise surrounding ID.
One way to go at this:
Todd Wood and a few others are working the field from a Biblical & scientific basis. At least they’re working under a set, defined principle that various species were created from distinct sets of ‘kinds’ or ‘baramins’, sharing no relationship via common ancestry across baramins. They’re trying to work out a testable classification scheme that will show such patterns in life. What makes Wood unusual is that while working under a YEC paradigm, he is attempting to make the best scientific approaches. If one method appears to fail, he’ll present the failure publicly, makes refinements and moves on. This is akin to how most of science progresses – Idea, test, evaluate, LEARN, REMEMBER, refinement, etc. If they can get a system that is coherent, fairly objective and working, they stand a better shot at getting broader interest. However, for now, work continues and they are remaining both pretty honest & modest in their self-assessments.