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?

[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?

Based on the criteria you have set forth, how can you call evolution a theory then. Can you falsify it. Can you say it is realistic that all things came from one thing? Scientific observation has shown adaptation and survival of the fittest, not evolution. And most random mutations are lethal. Very few are beneficial. But still no proof that mutation actually allowed some species to survive and others not as opposed to genetic predisposition, such as dinosaurs could survive the cold nor the limited resources. Even if one could induce mutations under some set of ethical code, most would still likely be lethal mutations.

The answer to your question is simple for me (keep in mind, I am confused), evolution isn't taught as an explanation for how humans exist, it teaches more natural selection and adaptation. ID tries to explain how humans and the earth came into existence.

Ok, McCulloch, tear me apart again.

[McCulloch]

Based on the criteria you have set forth, how can you call evolution a theory then. Can you falsify it?

Yes. The theory of evolution makes specific predictions about the nature of life. These predictions can be tested.

Can you say it is realistic that all things came from one thing? Scientific observation has shown adaptation and survival of the fittest, not evolution.

Evolution is adaptation and survival of the fittest. Genetic mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

And most random mutations are lethal. Very few are beneficial. But still no proof that mutation actually allowed some species to survive and others not as opposed to genetic predisposition, such as dinosaurs could survive the cold nor the limited resources. Even if one could induce mutations under some set of ethical code, most would still likely be lethal mutations.

That's why evolution is very slow. Evolution explains, for instance, why there are different species in different geological eras. ID does not (excepting one cataclysmic flood).

The answer to your question is simple for me, evolution isn't taught as an explanation for how humans exist, it teaches more natural selection and adaptation.

Evolution explains the diversity of life (including humans) through natural selection and adaptation.

ID tries to explain how humans and the earth came into existence.

ID pretends to explain how life and the earth came into existence without those bothersome elements of science, falsifiablity, parsimony, predictive theory, etc.

Ok, McCulloch, tear me apart again.

At your service.

[Confused]

Based on the criteria you have set forth, how can you call evolution a theory then. Can you falsify it?

Yes. The theory of evolution makes specific predictions about the nature of life. These predictions can be tested.

Can you say it is realistic that all things came from one thing? Scientific observation has shown adaptation and survival of the fittest, not evolution.

Evolution is adaptation and survival of the fittest. Genetic mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

And most random mutations are lethal. Very few are beneficial. But still no proof that mutation actually allowed some species to survive and others not as opposed to genetic predisposition, such as dinosaurs could survive the cold nor the limited resources. Even if one could induce mutations under some set of ethical code, most would still likely be lethal mutations.

That's why evolution is very slow. Evolution explains, for instance, why there are different species in different geological eras. ID does not (excepting one cataclysmic flood).

The answer to your question is simple for me, evolution isn't taught as an explanation for how humans exist, it teaches more natural selection and adaptation.

Evolution explains the diversity of life (including humans) through natural selection and adaptation.

ID tries to explain how humans and the earth came into existence.

ID pretends to explain how life and the earth came into existence without those bothersome elements of science, falsifiablity, parsimony, predictive theory, etc.

Ok, McCulloch, tear me apart again.

At your service.

You win. Though I still argue that the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable. Do you contend that it doens't try to teach the origin of man?

[Goat]

Based on the criteria you have set forth, how can you call evolution a theory then. Can you falsify it?

Yes. The theory of evolution makes specific predictions about the nature of life. These predictions can be tested.

Can you say it is realistic that all things came from one thing? Scientific observation has shown adaptation and survival of the fittest, not evolution.

Evolution is adaptation and survival of the fittest. Genetic mutation is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

And most random mutations are lethal. Very few are beneficial. But still no proof that mutation actually allowed some species to survive and others not as opposed to genetic predisposition, such as dinosaurs could survive the cold nor the limited resources. Even if one could induce mutations under some set of ethical code, most would still likely be lethal mutations.

That's why evolution is very slow. Evolution explains, for instance, why there are different species in different geological eras. ID does not (excepting one cataclysmic flood).

The answer to your question is simple for me, evolution isn't taught as an explanation for how humans exist, it teaches more natural selection and adaptation.

Evolution explains the diversity of life (including humans) through natural selection and adaptation.

ID tries to explain how humans and the earth came into existence.

ID pretends to explain how life and the earth came into existence without those bothersome elements of science, falsifiablity, parsimony, predictive theory, etc.

Ok, McCulloch, tear me apart again.

At your service.

You win. Though I still argue that the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable. Do you contend that it doens't try to teach the origin of man?

It is falsifiable. This is a link to a page that discusses the claim by creationists that evolution can't be falsified.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evoluti ... _falsified

It then procedes to list a number of different ways,

# Since creationism consists almost entirely of (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified, an appropriate response to this claim would be, "Make up your mind: Is evolution unfalsifiable, or has it already been falsified? Can't have it both ways."
# Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't.
# The genetic code could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
# If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.
# Theory of evolution deals with a much more complex system than other scientific theories. There are nearly unlimited amount of paramters which are mostly unknown and in addition these parameters are often related in a complicated way. Thus it is not so easy to derive exact predictions from evolutionary theory as it is e.g. in Newtons celestial mechanics. However, many examples prove that it is possible to make falsifiable predictions and therefore the theory of evolution qualifies clearly as a scientific theory.
# Not that this is a refutation, but the exact same statement could be made against Creationism.
# The claim simply isn't true. Not all facts would fit with evolution (e.g. the discovery of a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian shales) and therefore if such facts emerge, evolution would be falsified. It is simply the case that there have not been any facts that have falsified evolution.

[McCulloch]

Though I still argue that the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable.

If incontrovertible evidence was found showing gibbons existing in the Furongian Epoch, that would falsify evolution.

Do you contend that it doesn't try to teach the origin of man?

No, I don't. Evolution explains the cause of the diversity of life on earth, including humans.

[Jacurutu]

It's important to remember that falsifiable means that testing it will show that it is wrong if it is indeed wrong. For example, if we wanted to test whether or not meiotic recombination (one of the engines of evolution) does indeed exist, we could test two hypotheses:

null hypothesis - you only see offspring with exactly the same chromosomal layout as their parents
research hypothesis - offspring will have different chromosomal data than the chromosomal layout of their parents

Statistically, we test the probability that the null hypothesis is true. In this case, we find that there is approximately 50% meiotic recombination and we thus conclude that it exists. However, if the null hypothesis had been true, there would have been no meiotic recombination. Thus, the idea of meiotic recombination is falsifiable, but we can show that the probability that it is false is essentially 0.

[Confused]

Though I still argue that the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable.

If incontrovertible evidence was found showing gibbons existing in the Furongian Epoch, that would falsify evolution.

Do you contend that it doesn't try to teach the origin of man?

No, I don't. Evolution explains the cause of the diversity of life on earth, including humans.

So we are comparing apples and oranges. ID tries to explain how life began on earth and with Gods influence let to what we have today.

Evolution theory doesnt' postulate how we got here, only how we have evolved and survived.

Tear it apart again.

[Jacurutu]

The major reason that ID does not qualify as a theory is because it presupposes a God where there is literally no causal evidence showing that. Saying simply that God is responsible is not an explanation, it's merely a belief, and "teaching" that belief in schools is not ok. It is not ok for all of the reasons stated in my opening post.

[Goat]

Though I still argue that the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable.

If incontrovertible evidence was found showing gibbons existing in the Furongian Epoch, that would falsify evolution.

Do you contend that it doesn't try to teach the origin of man?

No, I don't. Evolution explains the cause of the diversity of life on earth, including humans.

So we are comparing apples and oranges. ID tries to explain how life began on earth and with Gods influence let to what we have today.

Evolution theory doesnt' postulate how we got here, only how we have evolved and survived.

Tear it apart again.

Currently ID doesn't postulate anything. It's adherents mainly attack evolution, rather than try to support their own thesis. They provide no way to test, no pathway to examine, and it has no explainatory powers.

Currently there is no theory about abiogenesis. However, there are experiments going on all the time to find out if certain pathways to
the development of life are feasible.

[McCulloch]

ID tries to explain how life began on earth and with Gods influence let to what we have today.

ID does not explain how life began. It just says straight out that God did it by magic and that it took six days.

Evolution theory doesn't postulate how we got here, only how we have evolved and survived.

Evolution explains most of the path of how we got here. It is just missing a few bits. Most troubling is the first bit about how living things came from non-living. Science has the honesty of saying, we really don't know, rather than falling back on the God of the gaps.