It's important to realize that the concept of evolution has been around for a long time; even the ancient Greeks had formulated some elements of it. Charles Darwin, of course, is who we think of when the topic comes up- his Origin of the Species was a comprehensive study that introduced the concept to the masses. There was a lesser known gentleman who more or less conceived the same theory independently (a fairly common phenomenon in science). His name was Alfred Russell Wallace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

    Proponents of the revised design argument (Intelligent Design or ID) stay intentionally agnostic in their official stance on what the "designer" would be, being careful not to mention God in their writings or discussions. But true scientists who believe Darwin's theories still dismiss ID, due to its allowance for supernatural explanations. Natural selection does not require an intelligent designer to work. Even though an intelligent entity could be the force behind the complexities of life on Earth, the concept is superfluous. Or as the "Occam's Razor" maxim informs us, "the simplest explanation is the most likely."

     Intelligent Design's chief argument for its theory is the idea of irreducible complexity- the status of having multiple interacting parts, each of which are essential to an organism's function. Our internal organs are an example- brain, heart, lungs, liver, and several others are all crucial to keep us alive; remove one and death occurs. ID claims that such interdependence cannot be explained by evolution. But unfortunately for their cause, they are mistaken.

     Evolutionists can counter that there are numerous examples of parts in organisms that had different functions in earlier animals than they do now- the organs themselves have evolved over time and established a synergy with others. Evidence of this is found in various vestigial organs and bones- parts that are no longer needed but still haven't evolved completely away. Whales, for instance, used to be land animals! There are still remnants of leg bones in their skeletons, although they are now internalized. The human appendix is another example- earlier versions of hominids ate far more cellulose (plant fibers) and that was its function, breaking that stuff down. Homo Sapiens no longer needs an appendix, but it's still there.

     Evolution is just one of many intricate and efficient processes at work in the world, and it's easy to see the temptation to assign an intelligent designer to them. It cannot be ruled out as of yet, but to date there's no empirical evidence. And that's the bottom line. Evolution has a large body of evidence, and Intelligent Design has none.

@William Bryan:

It's important to realize that the concept of evolution has been around for a long time; even the ancient Greeks had formulated some elements of it. Charles Darwin, of course, is who we think of when the topic comes up- his Origin of the Species was a comprehensive study that introduced the concept to the masses. There was a lesser known gentleman who more or less conceived the same theory independently (a fairly common phenomenon in science). His name was Alfred Russell Wallace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

    Proponents of the revised design argument (Intelligent Design or ID) stay intentionally agnostic in their official stance on what the "designer" would be, being careful not to mention God in their writings or discussions. But true scientists who believe Darwin's theories still dismiss ID, due to its allowance for supernatural explanations. Natural selection does not require an intelligent designer to work. Even though an intelligent entity could be the force behind the complexities of life on Earth, the concept is superfluous. Or as the "Occam's Razor" maxim informs us, "the simplest explanation is the most likely."

     Intelligent Design's chief argument for its theory is the idea of irreducible complexity- the status of having multiple interacting parts, each of which are essential to an organism's function. Our internal organs are an example- brain, heart, lungs, liver, and several others are all crucial to keep us alive; remove one and death occurs. ID claims that such interdependence cannot be explained by evolution. But unfortunately for their cause, they are mistaken.

     Evolutionists can counter that there are numerous examples of parts in organisms that had different functions in earlier animals than they do now- the organs themselves have evolved over time and established a synergy with others. Evidence of this is found in various vestigial organs and bones- parts that are no longer needed but still haven't evolved completely away. Whales, for instance, used to be land animals! There are still remnants of leg bones in their skeletons, although they are now internalized. The human appendix is another example- earlier versions of hominids ate far more cellulose (plant fibers) and that was its function, breaking that stuff down. Homo Sapiens no longer needs an appendix, but it's still there.

     Evolution is just one of many intricate and efficient processes at work in the world, and it's easy to see the temptation to assign an intelligent designer to them. It cannot be ruled out as of yet, but to date there's no empirical evidence. And that's the bottom line. Evolution has a large body of evidence, and Intelligent Design has none.