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]

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

This is closer. Now to the next set of questions. I appreciate the description of the process, and will read it, but from what I’ve read thus far the first link does not discuss the rise of 3+0 cilia. It seems to the cover 9+2 structure exclusively. The second seems to be merely a list of cellular structures; interesting, but a bit beside the point.
As for the claim above, it seems to be closer to answering the question, but still relies on a few independent parts (“lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers”). That is very close, but I’d love to know that this is a functioning system that can be evolved from a gradual process.

[Confused]

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.

ID has no use in science at all. Knowledge is learned, art is created, technology is developed, and science is systematic approach to studying the natural process of events to make predictions about the causes of the events or about the future of events (hypotheses) which are then tested, retested, and further tested for reliability and validity at which point we consider them a theory. ID does none of this. It simply attempts to explain natural with supernatural when science can't explain the natural. Unfortunately, ID is constantly changing as science explains ID's supernatural causes with natural causes. It is a religious reaction to science in a poor attempt to continue to control the masses.

[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.

ID has no use in science at all. Knowledge is learned, art is created, technology is developed, and science is systematic approach to studying the natural process of events to make predictions about the causes of the events or about the future of events (hypotheses) which are then tested, retested, and further tested for reliability and validity at which point we consider them a theory. ID does none of this. It simply attempts to explain natural with supernatural when science can't explain the natural. Unfortunately, ID is constantly changing as science explains ID's supernatural causes with natural causes. It is a religious reaction to science in a poor attempt to continue to control the masses.

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

[Cathar1950]

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

What is that above suppose to even mean? How do you answer it, Magic?

They can use their brain no matter how they account for it, just some may not make sense.
Evolution does a fine job of explaining the development of the brain. There are many approaches. You are trying to interject ideas such as design into the formula that presupposes a designer. You want us to only consider one sort of designer and meaning of design among many based on mythology and ancient stories. It isn’t needed. Unless you think talking to the dead is important and angels and demons are everywhere.
If they interact intelligently then they are intelligent. You are not giving account but you are naming functions that you have decided exist while they are very limited abstractions. You question is nothing but nonsense and is less then words can say.
Why do they have to account of doing intelligent things?
What ever we discover is discoverable and limited. But we trudge on. You want to make normal functional words magical. .

[Confused]

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.

ID has no use in science at all. Knowledge is learned, art is created, technology is developed, and science is systematic approach to studying the natural process of events to make predictions about the causes of the events or about the future of events (hypotheses) which are then tested, retested, and further tested for reliability and validity at which point we consider them a theory. ID does none of this. It simply attempts to explain natural with supernatural when science can't explain the natural. Unfortunately, ID is constantly changing as science explains ID's supernatural causes with natural causes. It is a religious reaction to science in a poor attempt to continue to control the masses.

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

How do you explain it? By some mysterious God? You fail to understand that science doesn't try to explain the supernatural. Only the natural. A brain that isn't taught by another brain how to do some task will not learn how to do that task. These blueprints you are referring to are developed over time. Some brains can learn quicker and can use deductive reaason skill faster. But I would think that the diversity of the brain would be a major indicator that all brains don't share the same designer, otherwise they would all be the same. We all know this not to be the case. There are no "blueprints" set in stone. They evolve. We don't need to look to a supernatural cause for this evolution when the convergence of evidence already explains it. ID can never be a scientific theory because their is no science to it. It is an vain attempt to disprove science by misusing science.

[Confused]

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.

ID has no use in science at all. Knowledge is learned, art is created, technology is developed, and science is systematic approach to studying the natural process of events to make predictions about the causes of the events or about the future of events (hypotheses) which are then tested, retested, and further tested for reliability and validity at which point we consider them a theory. ID does none of this. It simply attempts to explain natural with supernatural when science can't explain the natural. Unfortunately, ID is constantly changing as science explains ID's supernatural causes with natural causes. It is a religious reaction to science in a poor attempt to continue to control the masses.

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

When the religious community couldn't force convince the education department that creationism/ID was a science they decided to take it to the government to see if they could force teachers to teach it as science. 72 Nobel Laureastes, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the supreme court to present the best short statements of the central tenets of science endorsed by the worlds leading scientists and science organizations. It defines the criteria of science, a field "devoted to formulating adn testing naturalistic explainations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena". At the heart of this is the scientific method: from facts (properties of natural phenomena from an increasing body of observations that give information about the underlying facts which leads to rigorous, methodical testing of principles that might present a natrualistic explanation for those facts) to hypotheses (based on well established facts, testable hypotheses are formed wich leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses) to theories (the special dignity that when it explains a large and diverse body of facts, is considered robust and if it consitently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed, is deemed reliable. Facts and theories aren't interchangeable. Facts are the worlds data, theories are explanatory ideas about that data. Constructs and other nontestable statements are not a part of science. An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science) to Conclusions (No explanatory principles in science are final. Even the most robust and reliable theory is tentative. A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viablitity) to explanations (only naturalistic explanations for phenomena. Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations;without passing judgement on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their considereration to the domain of religious faith becasue the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited tot he search for naturalistic principles so it remains free of religious dogma).


You show me how ID meets the criteria set forth to be a science and I will personally convert immediately and will lobby every day for the next year in Washington for equal education for creationism/ID and evolution.

[jcrawford]

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

What is that above suppose to even mean? How do you answer it, Magic?

Mathematicians cannot account for the seemingly miraculous correlation and correspondence of their formulae and equations with physical phenomena.

They can use their brain no matter how they account for it, just some may not make sense.

Not being able to account for one's own intelligence may explain the lack of appreciation for the intelligent design of own's own brain.

Evolution does a fine job of explaining the development of the brain.

The human fossils I see don't have any brains, just an empty space in their skulls where their brains used to be.

You are trying to interject ideas such as design into the formula that presupposes a designer. You want us to only consider one sort of designer and meaning of design among many based on mythology and ancient stories. It isn’t needed. Unless you think talking to the dead is important and angels and demons are everywhere.

All that is needed to recognize intelligent design in nature is to examine the natural habitats which ants, bees, beavers and human beings intelligently design and create out of mud, grass, wood and rocks or some biologically generated substance.

You are not giving account but you are naming functions that you have decided exist while they are very limited abstractions. You question is nothing but nonsense and is less then words can say.

Abstract knowledge is the substance scientific theories are woven from.

Why do they have to account of doing intelligent things?

In order to claim the existence of intelligence one must have an intelligent theory of knowledge which theoretically explains what intelligence is.

What ever we discover is discoverable and limited. But we trudge on. You want to make normal functional words magical. .

Read Einstein sometime if you want to know how he considered mathematical formulae to be miraculous.

[jcrawford]

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

How do you explain it? By some mysterious God? You fail to understand that science doesn't try to explain the supernatural. Only the natural.

Limiting science to physics is the prerogative of physicists who choose to ignore all other forms of knowledge in regard to their limited field of study. In doing so though, they cannot arbitrarily rule out the knowledge ascertained through metaphysical, epistemological and Christian science.

A brain that isn't taught by another brain how to do some task will not learn how to do that task.

Tell that to all of the brilliant mathematicians who discovered new mathematical systems and formulae without a thought about their brains.

These blueprints you are referring to are developed over time. Some brains can learn quicker and can use deductive reaason skill faster. But I would think that the diversity of the brain would be a major indicator that all brains don't share the same designer, otherwise they would all be the same.

The diversity of knowledge doesn't indicate differences in brain structure, since in order to share in the function and communication of knowledge, all human brains seem to be designed pretty much the same. Proof of this is the fact that neurologists can map human brain structures at all.

There are no "blueprints" set in stone. They evolve.

Blueprints don't evolve. They are intelligently designed, or else the edifice which civil engineers and architects design will come tumbling down during the first gust of wind.

We don't need to look to a supernatural cause for this evolution when the convergence of evidence already explains it.

So stick to your scientific paradigms and rhetoric while other scientists explore more.

ID can never be a scientific theory because their is no science to it.

That is as scientific a tautolgy as e'er I did hear. Brilliant.

It is an vain attempt to disprove science by misusing science.

Mathematicans disprove scientific beliefs all the time. Good thing mathematics is not a science but a metaphysical language well adapted to communicating various aspects of physical phenomena in the world.

[jcrawford]

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

72 Nobel Laureastes, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the supreme court to present the best short statements of the central tenets of science endorsed by the worlds leading scientists and science organizations. It defines the criteria of science, a field "devoted to formulating adn testing naturalistic explainations for natural phenomena.

Limiting the criteria for scientific study and research to statist or legal definitions within a profession is a legitimate course of action for that profession to take, but when those who choose to focus their attentions on physcial matters alone pretend to rule out the possibility of a metaphysical or mental form of science, then by their own limited definition of science, they forsake the possibility of determing their own mental health.

Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations;without passing judgement on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their considereration to the domain of religious faith becasue the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited tot he search for naturalistic principles so it remains free of religious dogma).

Good. Then limit your science to your own finite and materialistic definitions and leave the supernatural sciences of metaphysics, mind, mental health and religion to the Christians on the forum.

You show me how ID meets the criteria set forth to be a science and I will personally convert immediately and will lobby every day for the next year in Washington for equal education for creationism/ID and evolution.

By your criteria nothing can be scientific which does not meet with or satisfy your arbitrary criteria.

Show me how anything may be considered to be scientific which has no element of intelligent design, purpose or plan in it.

btw: You neglected to answer the question of how scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

[Confused]

How do scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence then if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

72 Nobel Laureastes, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the supreme court to present the best short statements of the central tenets of science endorsed by the worlds leading scientists and science organizations. It defines the criteria of science, a field "devoted to formulating adn testing naturalistic explainations for natural phenomena.

Limiting the criteria for scientific study and research to statist or legal definitions within a profession is a legitimate course of action for that profession to take, but when those who choose to focus their attentions on physcial matters alone pretend to rule out the possibility of a metaphysical or mental form of science, then by their own limited definition of science, they forsake the possibility of determing their own mental health.

Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations;without passing judgement on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their considereration to the domain of religious faith becasue the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited tot he search for naturalistic principles so it remains free of religious dogma).

Good. Then limit your science to your own finite and materialistic definitions and leave the supernatural sciences of metaphysics, mind, mental health and religion to the Christians on the forum.

You show me how ID meets the criteria set forth to be a science and I will personally convert immediately and will lobby every day for the next year in Washington for equal education for creationism/ID and evolution.

By your criteria nothing can be scientific which does not meet with or satisfy your arbitrary criteria.

Show me how anything may be considered to be scientific which has no element of intelligent design, purpose or plan in it.

btw: You neglected to answer the question of how scientists or engineers explain or account for their own intelligence if their brains are not designed to intelligently interact with the designs and blueprints created in their minds?

You are kidding right?
1) your blueprints have been addressed. They don't exist until they are learned. Perhaps you should brush up on the develpmental stages of life starting from infancy to toddler to teenager to young adult to middle adult to older adult. Each includes milestones in development that are learned though interaction as well as observation.

2) Science addresses natural events, not supernatural. Evolution itself requires no element of Id or plan. It operates by adaptation and natural selection. It is validated through the convergence of evidence to include geology, paleontolgy, sociolgy, anatomy and physiology, genetics, etc...... Nothing supernatural involved. The purpose for these changes were survival. What part of this are you failing to understand. Before you attribute everything to a supernatural event, you should at least make yourself familiar with alternative view, especially if you are to debate them. You hurt your own religion by trying to use supernatural to explain everything. The fact of the matter is, if everything that happens is directly related to this designer, then this designer is fairly cruel. Allowing rape, murder, molestation, torturing, etc.... Without any other view than your designer, then we can attribute these horrible things to Him. Oops, I forgot, these are mankinds sins, since we are sinful in nature. Funny how everything grand and good in this world is a direct result of this Creator while everything bad, evil, and sinful is directly related to man.

#3) You consider mind and mental illness issues to be left to religion. Ok, give me your local churches address and I will ensure that every patient here who is diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, depression, drug addiction, borderline personality disorder, disassociative disorder, anitsocial personality disorder, psychopathic diosrder, pedophilacs, necrophiliacs, etc.. are sent their for their cure since medicine obviously can't help but God can. The problem with your view is that many of these disorders can be diagnosed and treated through the "soft" science of psychology/psychiatry. Medication available that have shown some efficacy in treatments lead to a natural cause as opposed to supernatural.

Next????