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?

[Jester]

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?

I maintain that Inteligent Design is not science at all, but a philosophical conclusion drawn from scientific information.
Example: People should use sunblock is not a scientific statement, it is advice drawn from scientific information.
Atheism also fits into this category. A philosophical belief that is often confused with science.

Of course, this is not to comment on the truth or falsehood on any of these ideas, but I consider it good to categorize things carefully before starting the debate. (Wish I did that more often)

[muscle head]

In response to Mc Culloch who wrote back this:
"You might try to understand evolution before you attempt to criticize it"
>Evolution is a theory, not a law. This means that it hasn't been proven true; therefore, there is always room for criticism.

"Plants have evolved. So says every botanist who believes in evolution"
>Is this a matter of opinion or of facts?

"Evolution is a slow process. When environment change faster than evolution to keep up, things like extinctions happen."

>The balance of the earth's ecosystems and the relationships between species is impossile to explain under evolution's ever changing view. Without a clear plan and purpose for everything which is established by God, there cannot be an order among living things. [/quote]

[Goat]

In response to Mc Culloch who wrote back this:
"You might try to understand evolution before you attempt to criticize it"
>Evolution is a theory, not a law. This means that it hasn't been proven true; therefore, there is always room for criticism.

You obviously do not understand science. "Law" is pretty obsolete, and basically
is used to describe very minor items that are descriptions, rather than understanding WHY. The so called 'Laws of motion' for example. .. they are 'laws', but they also are wrong. They just approximate things at low velocities.

In science , a theory is as good as it gets. You are using the logical fallacy of
'equivication', since you are using the laymens term 'theory' to mean a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a model that explains observations. A scientist comes up with a model to explain those observations, and then they try to disprove it. In 150 years of testing, the "theory of evolultion" has not been disproven, and has also made some very good predictions about what would be discovered/confirmed with data.

"Plants have evolved. So says every botanist who believes in evolution"
>Is this a matter of opinion or of facts?

It is a fact. There are a number of speciation events that have been observed with
plants.

"Evolution is a slow process. When environment change faster than evolution to keep up, things like extinctions happen."

>The balance of the earth's ecosystems and the relationships between species is impossile to explain under evolution's ever changing view. Without a clear plan and purpose for everything which is established by God, there cannot be an order among living things.

[/quote]

You seem to think that there is a 'purpose' by god. THere is no evidence of this in science. There IS evidence, very strong evidence of evolution. You seem to think there is 'an order among living things". That is an ambigious statement. Try to explain what you mean, and then give evidence of this 'Order'. It might not even exist as you think it does.

[McCulloch]

In response to Mc Culloch who wrote back this:
"You might try to understand evolution before you attempt to criticize it"
>Evolution is a theory, not a law. This means that it hasn't been proven true; therefore, there is always room for criticism.

Yes. Informed educated criticism. Your post simply showed that you do not adequately understand the theory of evolution. You are attacking a strawman version of evolution that simply does not exist.

"Plants have evolved. So says every botanist who believes in evolution"
>Is this a matter of opinion or of facts?

Fact. Maize.

"Evolution is a slow process. When environment change faster than evolution to keep up, things like extinctions happen."

>The balance of the earth's ecosystems and the relationships between species is impossile to explain under evolution's ever changing view. Without a clear plan and purpose for everything which is established by God, there cannot be an order among living things.

So you say.

[McCulloch]

"Plants have evolved. So says every botanist who believes in evolution"
>Is this a matter of opinion or of facts?

muscle head, does it take that much effort to google "plant evolution"? Second hit is this website talking about the evolution of plants. Sixth hit is this site from Yale about teaching plant evolution, complete with a big bibliography.

[muscle head]

A scientific theory 'seeks' to prove that something is valid. This process includes the formulation of a hypothesis and then data to support that hypothesis.
A law on the other hand has already been proven to be valid. The only room for error lies in the explanation of why it is valid. Here is where many scientists make mistakes. They discover a law but can't explain the phenomenom that makes that discovery true. An incorrect explanation for why the law is law is what would make the law seem faulty but in reality the faultiness lies within the explanation.

Second point: Just because some animals have become extinct doesn't mean that they weren't intelligently designed. The only reason why extinction occurs is because of both internal and external factors that intervene with and effect the life process of living things. Anything from natural disasters, weather conditions, the hunting of animals, and the break out of disease, can all trigger any species to become extinct. It is when an action takes place that a reaction occurs. It is when something is caused that there is an effect. This also explains why we have ancient trees in some parts of the world. They didn't evolved nor failed to evolved, they were simply the product of human intervention. People cared enough to take care of them and preserve them in zoos or specially reserved natural habitats. Animals like the panda bear and american bald eagel were almost going to become extinct due to the high degree of hunters hunting them and in some cases due to the lack of natural habitats for them. It was only when scientists and conservationist became more aware of this problem that they started investing in zoos and centers that would help endangered species procreate and continue to exist. It all has to do with what kind of intervention takes place whether it be good or bad.


Point 3: there is definitely an order among things. By order I mean that there is a perfect organization of elements in our environment and outside of our environment. Just look at the planets and how they move. They are within perfect distance from each other, if not they woudl all crash into each other. They are also within safe distance from the sun, if not they would all burn up. The earth's tilt and rotation is so precise that we continue to have the seasons at around the same time we always have them, it never fails. It is like a clock that keeps going and its hands keep marking a second,minute, and hour at just the precise time.

If you don't believe that there is a purpose for everything then you would have to deny cause and effect. If I raise my hand and pound it on the desk I will make a noise and cause the table to move. Now look at this example. Why would any woman get pregnant? It's obviously because a spern managed to enter an egg. In other words the cause is: a sperm entering an egg, and the effect is: the egg becoming fertilized and a baby begining the stages of developement. There is a purpose for why the sperm precisely traveled its distance to get to the egg. Who told the sperm that it needed to get to the egg? Or that it needed to be released for that matter? Folks, this process occurs for the purpose of procreation. If there is no purpose for something than that something would not exist. That is why God created us as man and woman so that we would join in matrimony, procreate, and fill the earth. If mankind is not to multiple and fill the earth. then there would be no sex, no sperm, no egg, and no humans around.

There must be a purpose for something in order for that something to exist. Because we couldn't see in the dark, the need for a light bulb arose. Edison discovered how to create a long lasting light bulb. If the need for light woudln't have existed neither would the purpose for having light and creating a long lasting light bulb. When inventors invent things, they always think of what people need that they don't have. It has to be something that would make someone's life easier, something that has a real purpose for making. An inventor would not make an umbrella that has no top covering. Why? because than it wouldn't be useful against the rain nor sun. Instead, creating an umbrella that can shield you from the rain and sun, sounds much better. That is why they bothered to invent it; it's because there was a purpose for it.
Now because there was a purpose for it, it was invented, and because it was invented it helps to give order to our way of life. Because we have light we can work at night time, we can drive anywhere at anytime, and society basically functions in a more orderly fashion. Things get done on time if we want them to. That is the relationship between purpose and order. If it exists than there is a reason and purpose behind it!

[McCulloch]

A scientific theory 'seeks' to prove that something is valid. This process includes the formulation of a hypothesis and then data to support that hypothesis.
A law on the other hand has already been proven to be valid. The only room for error lies in the explanation of why it is valid. Here is where many scientists make mistakes. They discover a law but can't explain the phenomenom that makes that discovery true. An incorrect explanation for why the law is law is what would make the law seem faulty but in reality the faultiness lies within the explanation.

No, a theory in science is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Second point: Just because some animals have become extinct doesn't mean that they weren't intelligently designed. [...]

Or that they were.

If you don't believe that there is a purpose for everything then you would have to deny cause and effect.

No. Just ultimate cause.

If I raise my hand and pound it on the desk I will make a noise and cause the table to move.

Yes. So?

Now look at this example. Why would any woman get pregnant? It's obviously because a sperm managed to enter an egg. In other words the cause is: a sperm entering an egg, and the effect is: the egg becoming fertilized and a baby beginning the stages of development. There is a purpose for why the sperm precisely traveled its distance to get to the egg. Who told the sperm that it needed to get to the egg? Or that it needed to be released for that matter? Folks, this process occurs for the purpose of procreation. If there is no purpose for something than that something would not exist. That is why God created us as man and woman so that we would join in matrimony, procreate, and fill the earth. If mankind is not to multiple and fill the earth. then there would be no sex, no sperm, no egg, and no humans around.

Let's see if I follow. Humans procreate, therefore God exists. Gotcha!

There must be a purpose for something in order for that something to exist.

No there does not. The fifty third, 2kg rock in a crater on the dark side of the moon has no apparent purpose, but it arguably exists.

Because we couldn't see in the dark, the need for a light bulb arose. Edison discovered how to create a long lasting light bulb. If the need for light woudln't have existed neither would the purpose for having light and creating a long lasting light bulb. When inventors invent things, they always think of what people need that they don't have. It has to be something that would make someone's life easier, something that has a real purpose for making. An inventor would not make an umbrella that has no top covering. Why? because than it wouldn't be useful against the rain nor sun. Instead, creating an umbrella that can shield you from the rain and sun, sounds much better. That is why they bothered to invent it; it's because there was a purpose for it.
Now because there was a purpose for it, it was invented, and because it was invented it helps to give order to our way of life. Because we have light we can work at night time, we can drive anywhere at anytime, and society basically functions in a more orderly fashion. Things get done on time if we want them to. That is the relationship between purpose and order. If it exists than there is a reason and purpose behind it!

Let's see if I follow this line of reasoning. Human inventors are purpose driven. Therefore nature must be purpose driven. OK. Sure!

[muscle head]

Now I know why some users have a long record of postings. It's because they spend time contradicting without debating.

McCulloch wrote:
"A scientific theory is a model that explains observations. A scientist comes up with a model to explain those observations, and then they try to disprove it."

Is this not the same as a scientific theory seeking to prove if something is valid?

I wrote:
If you don't believe that there is a purpose for everything then you would have to deny cause and effect.
McCulloch wrote:
"No. Just ultimate cause."
If something ultimately causes something, wouldn't there be an ultimate effect? If there isn't an effect, then there wasn't a cause. So, If I raise my hand and pound it on the desk, I will make a noise and cause the table to move. Cause: pounding my hand on the table Effect: making a noise. If there is a noise and I didn't pound my hand than the noise was caused by something else. If there wasn't a noise, than nothing had caused it. With cause and effect something either is or isn't. Either something will move it or else it will not move.

McCulloch wrote:
"Let's see if I follow. Humans procreate, therefore God exists. Gotcha!"
If the complex process of procreation is achieved through complex steps which a human being has no control over other than a sexual relation, than Someone (God) is obviously directing things.

McCulloch wrote:
"No there does not. The fifty third, 2kg rock in a crater on the dark side of the moon has no apparent purpose, but it arguably exists."

Just because you can't imagine that something has a purpose, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exists. Centuries ago people could not conceive of the existence of gravity and sound waves but although they can't be seen they have always existed and have always had a purpose, some of which has been taken advantage of. So if something that cannot be seen has been discovered and purposely used or taken advantaged of, than imagine how much significant something that can in fact be seen be.


McCulloch wrote:
"Let's see if I follow this line of reasoning. Human inventors are purpose driven. Therefore nature must be purpose driven. OK. Sure!"

If nature isn't purpose driven than why do many atheist attribute life processes to "mother nature"? So the idea of mother nature is faulty isn't it? Because according to you it isn't purpose driven right?

[Wyvern]

A law on the other hand has already been proven to be valid. The only room for error lies in the explanation of why it is valid. Here is where many scientists make mistakes. They discover a law but can't explain the phenomenom that makes that discovery true. An incorrect explanation for why the law is law is what would make the law seem faulty but in reality the faultiness lies within the explanation.

Scientific laws are a rare thing since to be one it has to be universally true.

Animals like the panda bear and american bald eagel were almost going to become extinct due to the high degree of hunters hunting them and in some cases due to the lack of natural habitats for them. It was only when scientists and conservationist became more aware of this problem that they started investing in zoos and centers that would help endangered species procreate and continue to exist. It all has to do with what kind of intervention takes place whether it be good or bad.

Giant pandas are still on the brink of extinction due to loss of habitat, hunting, bamboo's twenty year die off cycle and a very difficult breeding cycle. There are few of them in zoo's and the ones that are haven't had a good track record for breeding. Bald eagles the problem was much easier, DDT was devastating the population in all but a few isolated places. When the use of DDT was discontinued the population started to rebound slowly. Most raptors in america ran into this problem especially peregrine falcons.

Point 3: there is definitely an order among things. By order I mean that there is a perfect organization of elements in our environment and outside of our environment. Just look at the planets and how they move. They are within perfect distance from each other, if not they woudl all crash into each other. They are also within safe distance from the sun, if not they would all burn up. The earth's tilt and rotation is so precise that we continue to have the seasons at around the same time we always have them, it never fails. It is like a clock that keeps going and its hands keep marking a second,minute, and hour at just the precise time.

I don't think you understand just how really big space is, if the planets weren't constrained by gravity they would just get flung out into space. They would not automatically crash into one another in fact the chances of that happening are literally astronomical. Same thing for the distances of the planets from the sun. They are kept where they are because thats where they formed and due to theinterplay of the suns gravity and the vector of the planets motion, they would not come crashing into the sun, unless of course if planetary motion would spontaneously stop which would be very bad all by itself.

That is why God created us as man and woman so that we would join in matrimony, procreate, and fill the earth. If mankind is not to multiply and fill the earth. then there would be no sex, no sperm, no egg, and no humans around.

What is the purpose of humanity filling the earth? For that matter none of the other creatures on the earth have a command given by god to do this so why do they procreate? By your logic the only creatures that should be on the earth should be humans.

There must be a purpose for something in order for that something to exist. Because we couldn't see in the dark, the need for a light bulb arose. Edison discovered how to create a long lasting light bulb. If the need for light woudln't have existed neither would the purpose for having light and creating a long lasting light bulb. When inventors invent things, they always think of what people need that they don't have. It has to be something that would make someone's life easier, something that has a real purpose for making. An inventor would not make an umbrella that has no top covering. Why? because than it wouldn't be useful against the rain nor sun. Instead, creating an umbrella that can shield you from the rain and sun, sounds much better. That is why they bothered to invent it, it's because there was a purpose for it.

Kinda makes you wonder about pet rocks. They were invented and yet they had no purpose.

Now because there was a purpose for it, it was invented, and because it was invented it helps to give order to our way of life. Because we have light we can work at night time, we can drive anywhere at anytime, and society basically functions in a more orderly fashion. Things get done on time if we want them to. That is the relationship between purpose and order. If it exists than there is a reason and purpose behind it!

Please tell me the purpose for pet rocks.

[Chad]

Second point: Just because some animals have become extinct doesn't mean that they weren't intelligently designed.

I think it shows a lack of intelligent design. If I were God, and 99% of the species I created went extinct, I would feel rather embarrassed at the creative wastefulness. Rather, extinction often makes some sense because natural selection cannot work fast enough to overcome certain catastrophes.

The only reason why extinction occurs is because of both internal and external factors that intervene with and effect the life process of living things. Anything from natural disasters, weather conditions, the hunting of animals, and the break out of disease, can all trigger any species to become extinct. It is when an action takes place that a reaction occurs. It is when something is caused that there is an effect.

Not so much of a disagreement here. However, I would have to argue that living things are intricately tied to their different environments. Not because they were "created" for that environment though, but because the millions of years of evolution have allowed them to better adapt to a specific niche.

This also explains why we have ancient trees in some parts of the world. They didn't evolved nor failed to evolved, they were simply the product of human intervention. People cared enough to take care of them and preserve them in zoos or specially reserved natural habitats.

Humans are but a blip on the geological scale of time. To say that a tree exists because it's the product of human intervention seems to go against the evidence. Take Lampreys for example. They are an extreme example of a fish that has undergone little to no change throughout a period of 360 million years. They have no selection pressures really working on them, thus they undergo no change. They didn't survive in the same state because human intervention. They stayed in roughly the same state due to their environment and the relatively stable selection pressures.

Animals like the panda bear and american bald eagel were almost going to become extinct due to the high degree of hunters hunting them and in some cases due to the lack of natural habitats for them. It was only when scientists and conservationist became more aware of this problem that they started investing in zoos and centers that would help endangered species procreate and continue to exist. It all has to do with what kind of intervention takes place whether it be good or bad.

Are you arguing that our intervention alone dictates the survival of other animals?