How can Intelligent design even be considered a theory?

Question

It is barely an hypothesis. A theory needs substantiated evidence to support it. The scientific method needs to be applied to that evidence before it is considered substantiated. Has that been accomplished yet?

Answer 1

It's a bloody joke. That's all. There are too many morons around who will believe crap like this.

Answer 2

you're qualifications for theories and hypotheses are inconsequential to the kind of people putting up intelligent design as a theory. i think a more important question is... why are so many scientists discriminating against intelligent design theory simply because it's a faith and not science originated theory. one answer is that scientists work very hard to come up with their theories and the idea that some yahoos are just going march in and put their bloody golden calf on the table and insist everyone worship it, is a little insulting. on the other hand, perhaps they're a little intimidated by the shred of truth contained in intelligent design theory that's a common theme among parapsychology and other occult theories as well. that there seems to be order and structure where objectivity suggests there should be none. but then on the other other hand, (assuming you have three), I'm surprised more philosophers and logisticians haven't gotten into this debate and argued that the whole intelligent design theory is a counter-intuitive paradox... still not necessarily making it ultimately "false" or "bad" ... but just a counter-intuitive paradox... basically because one plane of chaos displaced by another plane of chaos creates a certain kind of order, in the sense that you now have a new disorder that is different, recognizably so from the orginal disorder... therefore not absolutely being disorder at all but something perhaps remotely kin to... well... order... at least in that exact place and time where the two recognizably different planes of chaos diverged.

Answer 3

Creationism - under any other name, including intelligent self delusion - was, is and never will be a theory.

The reason the godnazis want creationism deemed a theory is so they can teach it in schools. Rather than write papers and submit them to recognized scientific bodies and "prove" their arguments on merit, the religious seek to avoid and step around such requirements by preying on the ignorance of elected schoolboards.

If schoolboard members were required to have a scientific education in order to hold office, this wouldn't be an issue.

Answer 4

You have hit exactly my main objection to teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms. Science is a discipline that relies upon experimentation, data, observation, and analysis to develop explanations of natural phenomena. Intelligent Design cannot be tested empirically, and should therefore not be a part of scientific education.

Intelligent design DOES have a place in education, however. I feel it is best addressed in social studies classrooms. Cultures the world over have developed myths that explain human origins, and those myths inform the worldview of the people who inhabit those cultures. This is very fertile ground for academic study - just not of the scientific kind.

Answer 5

As long as there are enough people to believe in it...

I personally agree with you. I think that Genesis is metaphorical and should not be taken literally.

In the Qur'an, there is evidence of Evolution.

When your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am placing a caliph on earth,’ they replied: ‘Will You put there one that will do evil and shed blood, when we have for so long sung Your praises and sanctified Your name?’ He said: ‘I know what you do not know.’ He taught Adam all the names and then set them before the angels, saying: ‘Tell me the names of these, if what you say be true.’ ‘Glory be unto You,’ they replied, ‘we have no knowledge except that which You have given us. You alone are wise and all-knowing.’

Many things can be inferred from this passage. First, the angels state that they don't know anything beyond what God has already told them, meaning that how would they know about such things as "evil"? Animals are not evil to one another; it is in their basic instinct to follow the food chain.

Therefore, apes must have already been evolving at this point into neanderthals--half-human, half-apes. They had animal instincts but could kill with motive.

But there's more.

The first living thing that came about according to Evolution is algae.

“Do not the unbelievers see that the heaven and the earth were joined together, then we set them asunder and we brought every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?”

Then sexual reproduction among the plant kingdom occured.

“(God is the one who) sent down the water from the sky and thereby brought forth pairs of plants, each separate from the other.”

Thus, animals emerged.

"(God) created every animal from water.”

Answer 6

You can't use "negative evidence" to support a theory, and that's exactly what ID attempts to do.

The system is too complex to be random, therefore there must be an order to it. Order presupposes purpose. Purpose presupposes a design. Design presupposes a Designer.

Besides the methodology used to construct ID is wrong--how do we interpret facts that seem to contradict our faith in a way that actually (psuedo)scientifically proves what wealready believe to be true.

Answer 7

You are right "Theory" is not adequate "Fact" is closer to the truth.

basic info....every living thing has DNA which is encoded with information. This information came from some where and it has steadily been excepted in the scientific world that it HAD to come from an outside source ...intelligent design. This is one of the more recent scientific discovery's known as the "Information Theory" that is one more knock on the impossibility of Evolution!

Answer 8

Logic demands it. Look at it this way; if you know something is true, it follows that it is true BECAUSE of something. Fire is hot; fire's attributes make this true. Somethin, in turn, makes those attitudes themselves true. Go on up the chain, you'll find an extremely long list of physical laws and properties.

So, when you determine something is true, an explanation for why it is true is the physical law(s) responsibe. But, that really just puts off the inevitable. No matter how you figure it, you'll eventually realize that there must be one truth that is responsible for all the others, and this truth cannot rely on anything but itself; anyting else would be like saying "I know it's true because Bob told me so, and he knows it's true because he asked me."

It therefore follows that this one truth at the top of the chain must have intent. After all, if it itself didn't intend to be the way it is, something else must have shaped it, given it its attributes, and that would mean it relies on that to be true. If there's nothing else to dictate this truth's attributes, it dictated them to itself: intent. It then follows that, seeing as how this world follows the laws of nature that spring from this intent, it was all an intelligent design.

Answer 9

There is no evidence for intelligent design. Just think how often you could use a third hand or an extra eye on another part of your body.

Answer 10

No, and I would agree that the Intelligent Design argument is a sub-par proof for the existence of g/God.

But we cannot apply the scientific method to Evolution, - (It isn't repeatable) either my friend, and many of the most brilliant thinkers of our time adhere to the theory.

Also, we cannot "prove" OR "disprove" (by scientific means) the metaphysical anyway - it's beyond the physical. Bollocks.

Answer 11

There is no better option. All scientific theories do not work. The big bang - the universe has not continued to expand at an even rate and it has not contrancted upon itself yet. Those pictures of the frogs used to show support for evolution were faked.