This one is my personal favorite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake This link talks about the science of snowflake formation.
Intelligent design (ID) is the argument that the universe, as it exists, is far too complex to have happened naturally; therefore, it must have had a designer. The proponents of intelligent design claim that it is an actual accredited branch of science, which may or may not be true. The fact is, the scientific community largely recognizes Darwin's Theory of Evolution, although there are certainly some scientists who do not.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php This is a link to a pro-ID website.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design This link appears to discuss ID quite thoroughly, sharing both sides of the argument.
I have provided these links so that I do not have to go into great detail about ID.
Intelligent design focuses primarily on living things. Since snowflakes are not living, those who support ID would immediately dismiss the arguments I am about to make. Take it as you will. This post is not meant to be a full scale rebuttal of ID, but simply to take an angle that perhaps has not yet been addressed.
Consider this quote from the second ID link above:
"Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance."
I find this quote very interesting. Those who argue against evolution often love to state (in ignorance) how evolution is nothing but mere chance. While chance is a part of it, it is certainly just a part of it. Chance, it seems, is dismissed by the believers of ID when they are arguing for their cause, but it is their main argument against evolution! If "complex patterns often happen by chance," isn't that a great argument IN FAVOR of evolution?
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Chance is either part of the whole argument or it isn't.
Look at the intricate design of the snowflakes above. Those are some pretty complex patterns that have happened by complete chance. But they don't happen rarely. They happen trillions of times whenever it snows! They were not designed. They just happened. There is no DNA to guide their creation. It is completely random. Yet this randomness leads to something beautiful. Something organized. Something complex. This snowflake did not have a designer and yet there it is in all it's complexity, symmetry, and beauty.
If this random chance happens so frequently in nature, it is not much of a stretch to theorize that this could have also happened in biological systems. And even if the first living molecule only had a minuscule chance of randomly forming, it only had to happen once. It is not unreasonable to suggest that, in a 4 billion-year time period, it could have happened, if only just once.
It is clear that complex structures can and do form naturally without the guidance of a designer. There might be those who argue that each snowflake is orchestrated by some deity. Well, that designer certainly has a lot of spare time on his hands, not to mention some pretty confusing priorities!
Besides, it goes back to that old argument, if there was a designer, where did it come from? Did the designer also have a designer? A living, intelligent being capable of designing the universe must have come from somewhere. If it designed the universe, where did it live before that?
Intelligent design raises more questions than it answers. Typically, the believers in ID are also religious (although it is not a requirement) and, in my opinion, it is merely their attempt to reconcile their held superstitions against known scientific fact; in other words, take religion and call it science. And since it is science, it must have some credibility especially since a few real scientists believe in it!
Complex structures do form randomly in nature with no designer. This is an undisputed fact. While this doesn't completely disprove the ID theory, it certainly does not help their cause.