In what ways can Intelligent Design be repeatedly tested?

Question

Theory: (n) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So if intelligent design were to be a scientific theory, it would have to be able to be tested with a or several controlled experiments. In what ways can scientists test Intelligent Design?

Answer 1

It cannot, because it is likely false, and is simply modern religions response to currnet knowledge which clearly disproves that which religion has for thousands of years maintained. Such as disease is caused by microscopic organism not god, dinosaurs and the fossil record, the earth is older than 6000 years, there are not 2 great luminaries just one, that the heavens are just vast collections of stellar objects of which our sun is included as well as our earth and could not have been created in the order or fashion dictated by the bible....etc. To respond to countless revelations religion has tried to supress these concepts any way they could, when in power they simply used force to do so, but since they have lost their coercive power, they have resorted to "faith", or like you have mentioned they simply expand gods influence refining it to fit present knowledge. Intelligent design comes as a response to evolution and DNA, with no explanation of why god forgot to mention these things to moses. The bible is acollection of book written long ago by men trying to instill morality, obedience, fear as well as to explain unknowns, in a time when police were not existent to compel compliance, and when basic concepts and knowledge of their surroundings were yet to be thought of. they had no idea of the vastness of either earth or the universe, so global floods seemed possible (especially when you don't travel more than 50 miles in any given direction), and the sun and moon both seem of equal size... we now know what causes rain, we have identified orbits and planets and meteors. these things which once seemed like magic to them are at present explainable to us. And those things which we do not understand at present like the origin of the universe, the nature of superconductors, or the property of DNA for self replication-- could be explained by magic but i'm sure with a reasoned mind, time and effort we will also find rational answers for them.

Answer 2

A lot of good answers already, let's see what I can add:

The fact is, the only way to prove a theory is to prove its premise by reproducing the conditions that give rise to predictable events.

It is not enough to prove ID by trying to -disprove- Evolution. Even if Evolution were flat wrong, that would add zero evidence to support ID or any other competing theory. Theories stand upon their own merits, not upon the ruins of flawed theories.

Thus, to prove ID, simply find the Intelligent Designer and have him/her/it reproduce the life-creating event. After all, it is the central claim that this is how life started. To prove it, reproduce the event.

Failure to be able to reproduce the event disproves a theory.

Now scientists freely admit they have yet to reproduce the event that generated life on Earth. What they say is they're working on it, but until then they don't know how it happened.

IDers, on the other hand, do not seem to be very hard at work summoning the Intelligent Designer and/or convincing him/her/it to create another life form. Indeed one might argue that they are not trying at all, de facto conceding that as a science their theory is false. Yet they claim their theory is the truth anyway.

Now as a religious belief, IDers are free to believe and claim what they want. But to claim it is 'good science' is unsustainable.

Answer 3

People design and build things everyday, so clearly things can be intelligently designed and built. Currently man is only beginning to be able to build things atom by atom. So yes you can test the concept of intelligent design, however, man is not capable of building with the biological yet, but we are working very hard to accomplish this. This is the case with both Intelligent Design and Evolution, however, neither process can be observed or repeated in a lab so both of them require a leap of faith to believe in. In scientific reallity they are not "theories" they are "hypotheses"/"inferences"

infererence:

the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation

The reason is that we started with our hypotheses, Intelligent Design comes from the bible and Evolution comes from Darwin. We then make observations about our environment to infer how things happened in greater detail.

Answer 4

Hmm. They could sit around and chant for advice from their God Intelligent Designer. That's really closer to mysticism than science, though.

That's not to say ID materials aren't fit for scientific research. On the contrary, you can give an ID textbook to beginning students of physics and have them test the properties of the paper, e.g. how well it burns, how fast if falls off a building, et cetera. If you can demonstrate that two ID textbooks have similar physical properties, you've found the single most coherent aspect of all ID "research."

Or, you could put the book under the leg of a wobbly table and then use the table for real scientific research.

Answer 5

Your definition doesn't say that a theory has to be tested. It only says, "especially one that has.." If you had to explain the existence of the universe would the big bang theory be your only answer. Shouldn't all answers be considered until proven wrong? Besides where did the material that started the big bang come from?

Answer 6

Could you please show me the lab tests that have been used to repeatedly test and make predictions about evolution?
Don't get me wrong, I am not denying evolution...it fits right in with what I believe about Intelligent Design....

Answer 7

It can't that's the problem. It's a logical fallacy.
If you say that the world is so complex that it had to have been created, then what created the creator? If you say that no one created the creator, then you acknowledge the possibility that a complex being can exist without being created, which negates your original argument.

ID is completely counter-intuitive.

Answer 8

It can be tested in exactly the same ways that evolution can be tested. Neither can be repeated; however, each can be examined in light of the evidence - and the evidence doesn't support evolution.

Answer 9

Probably the same way evolution can be. Neither one can be proven with physical evidence and neither one can be reproduced in a lab.

Answer 10

Dig Einstein up and ask him-it was his idea. Can;t do that-ask Steven Hawkings-he mused over it too.