Why Intelligent Design Isn't a Scientific Theory

[Jacurutu]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory for several reasons.

1) Any scientific theory must falsifiable. This means that it has to be something that can be tested and proven wrong if it is indeed wrong. There is no means of doing this with the "theory" of intelligent design.
2) Any scientific theory must be parsimonious, in the sense that it must be the simplest and most realistic explanation. Now, I know that many people might say that it doesn't get more simple than saying "God created everything." However, based on scientific observation, does it seem more probable that the universe and all living things were spontaneously generated at once or that modern life is the result of the processes of natural selection and random mutation over the last three billion years? We can rule out the first simply by the chemical law that mass and energy are neither created nor destroyed (although they may be interchanged). The second possibility is supported by mounds of empirical evidence.
3) Any scientific theory should allow you to make predictions. With evolution, you can do this; with intelligent design, you cannot.
4) Any evidence must be reproduceable. There are countless experiments testing the tenets of evolutionary theory; for example, you could test random mutation by inducing mutation in yeast with UV radiation (the same radiation that comes from our sun) and observing the phenotypic variation after plating these samples and allowing colonies to grow. Likewise, you can induce mutation in more advanced animals and observing the phenotypic effects of those mutations. The results of these tests will be consistent over time. The other bases of evolution are quite testable and reproducable as well.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of people claim that evolution and intelligent design are equally viable scientific theories, but intelligent design does not meet the qualifications to be considered a scientific theory.

My question is: how do people still want to call ID a scientific theory and teach it alongside evolution when one is faith and the other is a true scientific theory?

[McCulloch]

Welcome to the debates Jacurutu

Please have a look at the rules and Tips on starting a debate topic. Perhaps you could edit your post to include a clear question.

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

[Jacurutu]

Oops, my bad.

I have altered this thread to meet that requirement.

[Student Nurse]

My question is: how do people still want to call ID a scientific theory and teach it alongside evolution when one is faith and the other is a true scientific theory?

Some people say that initially God created everything, and then it evolved from there. Personally I think it is because they cannot deny what is right in front of their face (evolution) and yet they still want to hold onto their faith (creation). Some say that the flood formed the mountains, and that it would be considered science. There's the debate on if radiometric dating is an accurate way to date fossils and how old the earth is. I think that creationists trying to prove that the earth is "young" is their scientific basis. But I think you pretty much summed it up when you said that the law of physics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed so therefore creation can't happen. And you mentioned that science means you can predict what an outcome will be, and with evolution you can do that, and with creation you cannot. Those in themselves proves that creation is not scientific.

[McCulloch]

[H]ow do people still want to call ID a scientific theory and teach it alongside evolution when one is faith and the other is a true scientific theory?

Perhaps to avoid the constitutional barrier between church and state. Or perhaps because they have been taught to believe that ID is a scientific theory. Alas, the teaching of the very fundamentals of the philosophy of science is inadequate.

[Jacurutu]

My favorite part of the ID "theory" is the so-called evidence they select to back up their arguments. The entire "theory" rests on post-hoc observations which are totally unreproduceable. The church of the flying spaghetti monster parodies this wonderfully -- it has a very funny graph showing an inverse correlation between the number of pirates in the world and the mean global temperature. Statistically, you can always find "evidence" for any idea after the fact, especially with an incredibly large sample size (in this case, the history of the world). What gets ignored in this case is all of the data that counters the bases of ID theory.

[Confused]

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory for several reasons.

1) Any scientific theory must falsifiable. This means that it has to be something that can be tested and proven wrong if it is indeed wrong. There is no means of doing this with the "theory" of intelligent design.
2) Any scientific theory must be parsimonious, in the sense that it must be the simplest and most realistic explanation. Now, I know that many people might say that it doesn't get more simple than saying "God created everything." However, based on scientific observation, does it seem more probable that the universe and all living things were spontaneously generated at once or that modern life is the result of the processes of natural selection and random mutation over the last three billion years? We can rule out the first simply by the chemical law that mass and energy are neither created nor destroyed (although they may be interchanged). The second possibility is supported by mounds of empirical evidence.
3) Any scientific theory should allow you to make predictions. With evolution, you can do this; with intelligent design, you cannot.
4) Any evidence must be reproduceable. There are countless experiments testing the tenets of evolutionary theory; for example, you could test random mutation by inducing mutation in yeast with UV radiation (the same radiation that comes from our sun) and observing the phenotypic variation after plating these samples and allowing colonies to grow. Likewise, you can induce mutation in more advanced animals and observing the phenotypic effects of those mutations. The results of these tests will be consistent over time. The other bases of evolution are quite testable and reproducable as well.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of people claim that evolution and intelligent design are equally viable scientific theories, but intelligent design does not meet the qualifications to be considered a scientific theory.

My question is: how do people still want to call ID a scientific theory and teach it alongside evolution when one is faith and the other is a true scientific theory?

They can call it a theory because it is just that: a theory. Not a law. Just because it isn't testable at this moment, doesn't mean with work, it wouldn't be able to be falsified. Think of the law of gravity. What would have happened if we couldn't postulate a theory of gravity intitially?

[Goat]

They can call it a theory because it is just that: a theory. Not a law. Just because it isn't testable at this moment, doesn't mean with work, it wouldn't be able to be falsified. Think of the law of gravity. What would have happened if we couldn't postulate a theory of gravity intitially?

Calling something a law is quite passe these days. In general, it is merely a description. The law of gravity describes mathamatically how gravity appears to work.

However, what is NOT described by the law of gravity is WHY gravity workst hat way. The "Theory of Gravity" (i.e. also known as relativity), tries to create a model to understand why gravity works the way it does.

The 'Law' is the old fashioned way that a description is made (things accelerate towards the earth at 32 feet per second per second), and an attempt to explain WHY it happened (the theory).

"Intelligent Design" is mainly the logical fallacy of 'We don't know, therefore God'.

[McCulloch]

They can call it a theory because it is just that: a theory.

This thread is explicitly using the scientific definition of the word theory (1 below) rather than the informal common one (6).

the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
[...]
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory (accessed: October 31, 2006).

Think of the law of gravity. What would have happened if we couldn't postulate a theory of gravity intitially?

Technically, it is the theory of gravity.

[Confused]

They can call it a theory because it is just that: a theory.

This thread is explicitly using the scientific definition of the word theory (1 below) rather than the informal common one (6).

the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
[...]
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory (accessed: October 31, 2006).

Think of the law of gravity. What would have happened if we couldn't postulate a theory of gravity intitially?

Technically, it is the theory of gravity.

One of these days I am going to pick apart your brain. Point taken.