Is there any hard evidence at all for the Intelligent Design 'theory'?

Most models have some sort of evidence supporting them, or at least some logic. Creationists will argue many points in favor of Intelligent Design--some that are plausible and some that are utter nonsense-- but what's important is the model as a whole, and in Intelligent Design's case the evidence is compromised by the evidence against it. A better question would be: Is there evidence against Intelligent Design? And the answer is that there are too many. One obvious contradiction is that we know the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and the universe approx. 3.5 and 14 billion, and yet creationists argue that the universe is merely 6 to 10 thousand years old. Fossils and reliable dating methods provides empirical proof against such claims. Also note that not all Christians believe in Intelligent Design and in fact most religions do not argue the theory of Evolution One last point @physicistdude2014: Please be aware that something that lacks evidence is NOT a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. The word 'theory' used scientifically means a model supported by various hypotheses and empirical evidence as opposed to the more colloquial usage of the word as a mere 'guess'.

There is no hard evidence and that is why it isn't considered science. There isn't enough evidence for it to be tested through the scientific method therefore being unable to prove as fact.

No The design is actually very bad. Our eyes are back to front, nerves loop all over the place, backs ache, the visual cortex is right at the back of the head, and as for the path followed by semen... So, if you regard it as a scientific theory, it's wrong because its central prediction is wrong. When you point this out to ID advocates, they say "yes, but perhaps we don't understand the full intent behind the design". That's a total copout; Intelligent Design is then capable of explaining anything, which means that it explains nothing. So either it's a scientific hypothesis and wrong, or it's just a collection of meaningless noises. As to WHY people buy into ID, I don't think it's just religion. It's more like a lot of people are disturbed by what they don't understand, like exactly how complex systems have arisen step-by-step, and ID lets them imagine they understand it

"Christians believe it solely because they want it to be true." You learn quickly grasshopper. If you really want something to blow your mind check out Ray Comfort and his banana argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

The way i look at it is like this. There is no evidence that God exists, however, there is also no evidence that God does not exist. Therefore the theory of intelligent design remains just that, a theory.

Well, for one: What is it in the story of intelligent design that says there has to be just one designer? Couldn't there just as easily have been any number of designers -- all working together or at different times designing and constructing the universe? That's one of the fundamental problems with ID. One designer sounds an awful lot like one god. ID simple lacks substance and depth. However, I see a way to rescuse ID, and could. But then, I don't see any point in it.