In reply to Steven Foong , I would like to say that the intelligent design paradigm is not strictly scientific because it cannot answer the question regarding evidence for the existence of the designer.

It rests on the belief that very complex systems could not have evolved but had to be created in whole and complete. However there have been many counter examples by Darwinists such as Sir Richard Dawkins and others.

Irreducible complexity is irreducible only because its proponents could not envisage an evolutionary pathway to such levels of complexities. But others - Darwinists in particular - have succeeded in proposing plausible evolutionary pathways towards such complex systems without invoking an intelligent designer.

Ultimately the flaw in special creation ideas is that it offers no proof of the existence of a maker or designer. The existence of such a being has to be assumed without proof.

Moreover it cannot be reconciled with other aspects of geology and astronomy. Only Darwinism has survived the acid test of time and evidence to a high degree of rigour and consistency.