“Science will eventually explain the gaps in our current knowledge of the physical universe; Intelligent Design is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.”
First of all, let me affirm that humanity has greatly benefited from ethically practiced science. But in this case I think you have misunderstood the claim that proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) are making. ID is not an argument from what we don’t know, but an inference from what we do know. When it comes to explaining any structure or phenomena in the physical world, we have three basic options: (1) Physical Necessity, (2) Chance, or (3) Design. So, for example, if hikers come across Mt. Rushmore they have a choice to make as to how this curious rock formation occurred. Is this pattern here because of some law of nature (i.e., it had to be this way)? No. Could random forces like wind and erosion produce this given enough time? No. The first two options are ruled out because they are not reasonable inferences to draw. But this rock formation has faces on it that correspond to four American presidents. These rock faces fit an independent pattern and indicate design. Just as it is entirely reasonable for an archeologist to distinguish between a rock and an arrowhead using the process above so to the molecular biologist is justified to infer design when looking at the language and information contained in DNA. Our repeated experience tells us that information is always the product of a mind. So ID is not an argument from ignorance, but an argument from evidence.
