Is Intelligent Design a scientific theory? What makes a theory scientific or not?

Question

Before we discuss whether Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, we need to be sure of what our definition of a scientific theory is. I'm looking forward to reading your answers!

Answer 1

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

That is why intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It claims that an intelligent designer created the universe and all that it is in it. Such claims cannot be falsified by scientific tests and cannot predict future events.

If you want to read more about scientific theories, you should read Karl Popper and his essay in from Theodore Schick, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. There is a more detailed explanation in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery published in German in 1934 and in English in 1959.

Answer 2

A theory is a testable explanation for why observed events happen as they do.

Theories might explain whether one event causes another, or whether two correlated events are caused by a third. A theory might assert that some events are necessary, but not sufficient, for certain others to occur.

A theory might say that an experiment might have any of several different outcomes, and assign probabilities to each of them.

The main thing is that a theory isn't scientific unless it can be tested. Intelligent design might be a theory, but it isn't science unless the existence of the designer can be tested for experimentally. Apparently, no satisfactory test has ever been proposed. Many people, including me, think that the idea behind "intelligent design" is to sneak religion into the science classroom through a back door.

If unscientific theories are to be weighed, then I have one that is far more parsimonious than intelligent design. Universes are vacuum fluctuations, and our universe is observed to have life in it because of the weak anthropic principle. (Universes that don't have life in them are never observed.)

Answer 3

A scientific theory is supported by substantial (experimental)evidence. Theories are generally explanations for natural events that occur in the world around us that can be backed up by experimental data. Theories generally hold significant water. For example, Einstein's theories on relativity (both special and general) are almost universally accepted as fact. Yet if you notice that it seems to be cloudy every Tuesday night, it wouldn't be an accepted Scientific Theory if you said that every Tuesday it will be cloudy.

No, Intelligent Design is not yet an accepted Scientific Theory; I would personally classify it as a Hypothesis. I am a fan of natural selection.

The link below has some excellent information as well as some generally accepted guidelines for a Scientific Theory

Answer 4

Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis, and indeed a valid one. Those who equate intelligent design with creationism are simply wrong as creationism is a rather pathetic attempt to promote a literal viewpoint of Genesis, starting with the answer and working backwards.

Intelligent design's validity as a hypothesis comes from certain unsolved problems in Darwin's natural selection model. The supporters of intelligent design never argue against the theory of evolution; they simply question the mechanisms of the natural selection theory.

One example that is advocated is the evolution of the eye. Intelligent design scientists note that a gradual evolution of the eye would be highly improbable as all of the components of an eye need to be in place for vision to work, or as least pretty close to it. To fill in the void that they say natural selection leaves, they hypothesize that an intelligence caused a rapid evolution.

Keep in mind that on the base level, this makes no claim to the existence of God or gods. Perhaps the evolution came about because that is how the designers on the Planet Magrathea meant it to be. :-)

Of course, intelligent design is not the only alternative to the natural selection model. Perhaps another mechanism will be proposed that can answer the questions of evolution that are still remaining.

Answer 5

Intelligent Design is only a hypothesis. A theory starts out as a hypothesis, but supporting evidence is found that backs the hypothesis up. That evidence, key to science, is what makes a theory a notch higher than a simple hypothesis.

That is why Intelligent Design is not looked at kindly by scientists. Intelligent Design has no repeatable experiment that can verify its proof. While most Intelligent Design adcovates turn to attacking science as a way of proving their hypothesis. That is not how science works.

Answer 6

From an above answer...
"One example that is advocated is the evolution of the eye. Intelligent design scientists note that a gradual evolution of the eye would be highly improbable as all of the components of an eye need to be in place for vision to work, or as least pretty close to it. To fill in the void that they say natural selection leaves, they hypothesize that an intelligence caused a rapid evolution."
This argument has been around since the theory of evolution was first proposed and was one of the first things brought against evolution in the first place. Darwin defended it by hypothesizing that even a creature that could partly see would be at an advantage to those who couldn't, as seeing lighter versus darker areas would probably be an advantage.
Scientists have since discovered several fossils of creatures with features that are "primitive" eyes where they would be able to see light versus dark and other things, just like Darwin's hypothesis predicted. As it is supported by evidence this leads scientists to conclude that the creatures evolved into having eyes because there is evidence to back it up, whereas hypothesizing that eyes are just "too complicated" cannot really be proven. So that's an example of what people mean by comparing hypotheses to theories- namely, you need evidence to back things up!

Answer 7

In general, a "scientific" theory is usually based on a mathematical equation or set of related equations. Furthermore, such a theory would require at least some observable parameters, such as gravity, temperature, brightness, etc.,.

Intelligent design is more of a philosophical theory than a scientific one.

Answer 8

i tend to think of 'intelligent design' as more of a scientific hypothesis than a scientific thoery. a hypothesis is more of a guess that cries out to be experimented on, while a theory has been tested on and tested on and continues to remain ever more plausible. not much about intelligent design can be experimented upon. faiths, like superstitions, tend to be immune to practical scrutiny. this is what separates faith from theory. intelligent design would be more of a personal 'truth', while a 'theory of evolution' would be more acceptable to and believed by larger communities of people simply because of the rigorous scrutiny any such hypotheses have been subjected to and survived over time. evolution theory has the advantage of having eliminated as much superstitious baggage as our culture can bare.

Answer 9

Intelligent Design cannot be disproved by observations, so it does not meet the definition of a scientific theory.

Answer 10

A scientific theory is something that can be tested or at least is open to further inqury. Intelligent Design theory needs to be taken on faith so it is worthless, scientifically speaking.