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?

[muscle head]

You 're right in saying that intelligent design does not qualify to be called a scientific theory, and that's because intelligent design is absolutely true. It does not have to be tested, and predictions do not have to be made, because the evidence is all around us and there is no room left to deny it. Just look at the different species of animals and study them closely. Their physical characteristics and capablities are extraordinary and precisely perfect for the environment in which they live. Why is it that a polar bear's claws are much longer and pointier than that of a grizzly bear's? It's because God knew that the polar bear would need them in order to break the hard ice of its environment and be able to catch seals to eat. Why is it that the animals of the deep sea have bodies that produce their own light? It's because they were created that way because God knew that they would need their own supply of light since the sun light does not reach the bottom of the deep sea!

Every animal, in every species is carefully given a balanced set of characteristics that help that creature as well as other creatures that help keep the balance, to survive. Why is it that the biggest spider in the world is not venomous? It's because its shear size can kill an insect like that! But imagine if it were venomous. Than it could easily wipe out not just the smaller animals but also the bigger ones with just a sting from its fangs. But God knew that in order to keep a balance in the environment that He would have to keep the largest spider non venomous. That way another bigger animal could eat it and therefore no one animal is more powerful than the other. The same goes with the Lion. Lions are primarly found in Africa and although people in general think that the "king of the Jungle" rules, why do you think the elephant is around? It's to keep an environmental balance. Even the simpliest animal like a chameleon which isn't venomous and not exactly physcially threatening, is intelligently equipped to survive because God gave it the ability to blend with its surroundings and camouflage for safety and survival. These examples are just some of the countless reasons why there is a God who created everything and why intellligent design is simply a fact that is why it cannot be counted as a theory. It all has a purpose, a reason for being, and it all comes together in a perfect puzzle that allows the world to function the way it does.

For those of you who think that your environment will cause you to evolve in order to survive think about this:

If evolution were true than why is it that those who support it only apply it to animals and not to plants. Are plants not alive too? How come plants have not evolved despite all the natural disasters and changes that the world has gone through? If evolution were true, dinosaurs would still be around. How come they didn't evolve in order to survive? It's simply because dinosaurs were not equipped with the physical characteristics necessary to survive the changing times. You either have the characteristics necessary to survive in your environment or you don't. If you don't, you simply will not survive because the environment is not going to cause you to evolve in order to survive in it. If I dive to the deepest darkest bottom of the sea my lungs better be equipped to allow me to be there for the rest of my life because if they're not, I simply cannot survive like the animals that infact have the characeristics that enable them to live in that kind of environment. If I decide I want to live in Mount Everest I better be naturally equipped to do it because other wise Mount Everest isn't going to cause my body to change in order for me to survive on it. It's as simply as that! Our environment cannot cause us to change in order for us to survive if that were true than there simply would be no death because wouldn't everybody find a way to beat the odds and survive for ever?

[McCulloch]

For those of you who think that your environment will cause you to evolve in order to survive think about this:

You might try to understand evolution before you attempt to criticize it.

If evolution were true than why is it that those who support it only apply it to animals and not to plants. Are plants not alive too? How come plants have not evolved despite all the natural disasters and changes that the world has gone through?

Plants have evolved. So says every botanist who believes in evolution.

If evolution were true, dinosaurs would still be around. How come they didn't evolve in order to survive? It's simply because dinosaurs were not equipped with the physical characteristics necessary to survive the changing times.

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

[Chad]

Just look at the different species of animals and study them closely. Their physical characteristics and capablities are extraordinary and precisely perfect for the environment in which they live.

There's a lot to cover in your post. However I always wanted to ask someone who is in favor of Intelligent Design the following...

If God was such an intelligent designer, why is it that 99% of all species to have existed have gone extinct?

Also, I'm curious where the idea came from that those who accept evolution don't think that plants evolved. This search on Amazon shows a lot of books/textbooks on the subject. In fact, it was work on plants by Gregory Mendel that laid the foundation for some of the core concepts of variability and heredity in evolution.

[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!