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?

[Cathar1950]

They just seem like "Irredibubly(that word looks wrong) complex systems" after millions and millions of years of expressing what was most likely already possible from early life forms.
I remember reading about little hands and feet aquatic creatures had that guided them thru the weedy waters of the planet millions of years ago and they happened to work well on land too. From using O2 underwater to using it on the ground with lungs is just a variation that was already possible it primitive animals.
Whatever genes were first developed seems to have many possible uses and it took time to try out the various mutations being expressed. Worms have what it takes to make eyes and limbs.
As an off topic I was watching some show on the plague yesterday and after half the population was eradicated the birth rate went up as things settled down.

[McCulloch]

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

The problem of seemingly irreducibly complex systems has plagued the idea of evolution from the onset.
In Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most eminent zoologists, deals with this very theme, refuting most of the creationists claims of irreducibly complex systems.

[Confused]

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

The problem of seemingly irreducibly complex systems has plagued the idea of evolution from the onset.
In Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most eminent zoologists, deals with this very theme, refuting most of the creationists claims of irreducibly complex systems.

Once again, already addressed in such instances as the eye, the bacterial flagellum, genetic mutations that led to ability of muscles of face to form language coherently, etc.. As I said, ID newest poster child is the cascading factors for clotting, however I expect it to be explained in a stepwise manner such as allergic reactions currently are.

[Goat]

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

The problem of seemingly irreducibly complex systems has plagued the idea of evolution from the onset.
In Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most eminent zoologists, deals with this very theme, refuting most of the creationists claims of irreducibly complex systems.

Once again, already addressed in such instances as the eye, the bacterial flagellum, genetic mutations that led to ability of muscles of face to form language coherently, etc.. As I said, ID newest poster child is the cascading factors for clotting, however I expect it to be explained in a stepwise manner such as allergic reactions currently are.

This is why ID is not a scientific theory. First, it is not explaining anything at all, but rather looking at evolution and saying 'See, it does not have an explanation for THAT'. The explaination is forethcoming, usually in a short period of time (because they choose the current puzzle for biologists. The answer is found , so rather than admit their failure, they go onto the next puzzel that is being worked on.

It never is something that is gives a positive statement FOR I.D. either. It is always something that is attacking the explanatory powers of evolution.

[Cathar1950]

What some people need to understand is the universe is the way it is no matter what you believe. Except for the changes we make. They might be nothing more then self-fulfilling.

ID design is pushing God.
The only intelligence we can see is our own because that is the way the world is because of how we see it. But it is there nonetheless.

I am often amazed the effort people will exert to prove the non-provable or prove what they demand as faith. It takes faith now here is proof.

[QED]

I do appreciate the need for scepticism and the Theory Of Evolution should have no special immunity. But I really do get the feeling that even the most open-minded critic has wrongly convinced themselves that plain 'ol matter hasn't the means nor the inclination to arrange itself into novel and functional configurations without some sort of supernatural guidance. This is known to be wrong by the admission of those who accept so called microevolution and certainly by anyone who appreciates the principle of natural selection in the most general of senses.

[Jester]

Ah yes.. you do realise that Irredibubly complex systems CAN evolve naturally. They have even come up with an experiment that can show an IRC system
evolving in the test tube at wil.

As for the Cillum, the answer to that was discovered even before Behe's "Black Box" was published.

This has even been put in the 'creationist claims' section of Talk origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

I addressed the issue of evolution of an indirect route in my original example. Please provide a more specific explanation regarding those statements.
The link you showed me refers to cilium, but only explains the production of bacterial flagella in any detail, though it agrees that “The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum.” I agree with the article that the production of the cilium has been “discussed”, but it offers no more information or explanation of the possibility than I typed into my previous post (that the parts exist in other forms in a cell).

[Jester]

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

The problem of seemingly irreducibly complex systems has plagued the idea of evolution from the onset.
In Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most eminent zoologists, deals with this very theme, refuting most of the creationists claims of irreducibly complex systems.

I have not personally read many of Dawkins statements, but Behe asserts that his explanations are too broad (that the eye, for instance is actually a series of systems, and explaining its production in a few short steps (while it can illustrate a point) does not address the issue directly (as each of his steps are quite large). Now, I can certainly understand why Dawkins would be pushed into this position, particularly if writing for a lay audience, and feel that he and I would agree on at least two points.
1. Irreducibly complex systems are not automatically contradictions of evolutionary theory
2. Were macroevolution to be abandoned by the scientific community, it would be replaced by a scientific, rather than theistic model.
I am not in total disagreement with the concept of macroevolution (nor do I see that it contradicts theism to begin with), but simply do not yet find it compelling as a theory. As my travel does not allow me to purchase a copy of Dawkin’s book, would you provide a more specific explanation of a single system? We’ve been discussing the cilium, but we need not keep to this example.
Also, I understand that it is not possible in this debate to discuss all possible systems, and realize that this will likely create something of an impasse, but would appreciate it none the less.

[Goat]

Ah yes.. you do realise that Irredibubly complex systems CAN evolve naturally. They have even come up with an experiment that can show an IRC system
evolving in the test tube at wil.

As for the Cillum, the answer to that was discovered even before Behe's "Black Box" was published.

This has even been put in the 'creationist claims' section of Talk origins

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

I addressed the issue of evolution of an indirect route in my original example. Please provide a more specific explanation regarding those statements.
The link you showed me refers to cilium, but only explains the production of bacterial flagella in any detail, though it agrees that “The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum.” I agree with the article that the production of the cilium has been “discussed”, but it offers no more information or explanation of the possibility than I typed into my previous post (that the parts exist in other forms in a cell).

DId you miss

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

On Edit.. If you want something more substantial, you can read

http://www.upstate.edu/cdb/mitcheld/pub ... tchell.pdf

http://arnica.csustan.edu/Biol1010/cells/cells.htm

[jcrawford]

ID Theory may be useful for coordinating Design Theory with a theory of knowledge or intelligence which would designate either the human brain or mind as being intelligently designed, since humans have been observed to create intelligent designs in art, science and technologies other than watchmaking.