According to the scientific method, a scientist isn't supposed to start out with preconceived notions and then grasp for any evidence that might back up his/her conclusions. Instead, if he/she has a hypothesis, he/she is supposed to test it. If the tests confirm that there's something to the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes either a theory or a law.
Doesn't it seem to you that the Intelligent Design proponents have started off with a Creationist world view, and they have been grasping for whatever evidence might back up their claims?
2006-10-26 05:50:22 · 9 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
For intelligent design to be scientific, it would have to be possible to design an experiment which would disprove ID if the results turned out a certain way. So far, nobody's been able to come up with an experiment that would do that. Therefore, ID is not science. Any honest ID proponent should be able to admit that.
From what I've seen, the ID proponents act like lawyers trying to argue a case, not like scientists in search of truth.
2006-10-26 06:02:27 · answer #1 · answered by Bramblyspam 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Who taught you about the scientific method? All I can say is, they didn't do a good job of it.
All scientists start out with preconceived notions. To stop them from grasping for any evidence that might back up their conclusions, they create something called a null hypothesis. That's the opposite of a hypothesis.
So, let's say I had a hypothesis which states that people who have a literal interpretation of the Bible do not believe in Evolution.
I then create a null hypothesis, which states that people who have a literal interpretation of the Bible, believe in Evolution.
As a scientist, I then try to prove the null hypothesis to be true. Only if I fail to do so, do I then accept the hypothesis as being more true than the null. Of course, a null hypothesis is only useful if it is possible to calculate the probability of observing a data set with particular parameters from it. However, it is not the only way to prevent bias.
In order to show that there is no bias, I have to do more experiments to prove that the results I got weren't spurious. Then I have to submit it for publication, then a bunch of people review the work, then somebody else repeats it to see that I haven't made anything up.
That is why ID proponents and Creationists can't get their ideas accepted or published. Because:
a). They don't use a null hypothesis.
b). They obviously grasp for whatever evidence backs up their preconceived notions.
c). None of their "experiments" are repeatable.
2006-10-26 14:55:12 · answer #2 · answered by Chris W 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If you read anything by a design proponent, you will see the phrase "must be" scattered throughout as though it constituted some kind of real evidence. "This looks like it has been designed, so there must be a designer. Eureka!" This is not science, it is wishful thinking. It is wanting the truth to be something that makes one feel good, then searching for it in the limited light of ignorance. If you want to see how bad some of the design "scientists" are, read Lee Strobel's "The Case For a Creator." It is amazing how biased the design crowd is. They somehow make the logical leap from "The universe is designed" to "Christianity is truth." At best, they are hypothesizing a deistic god, but keep going -- with no more evidence -- to the existence of a theistic god, namely, the God of Abraham. Yes, their version of science is laughable, their evidence pathetic, and their insistence on being taken seriously potentially dangerous.
2006-10-26 13:04:39 · answer #3 · answered by Kurt 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
This should go under religion not math and science. You could say the exact same thing about people who say the creation didn't happen. Both start with preconceived notions. The problem is that this particular issue can't be settled by conducting an experiment and measuring the results. So you have differing opinion, neither of which is scientific. You would have to be able to create a world from nothing to prove either way.
Evidence for design...
entropy=the world tending towards disorder, must be overcome by a more powerful force to make something ordered.
2006-10-26 12:58:30 · answer #4 · answered by Shanna J 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
What creationists do or think has no bearing on science anyway. There is no reason to hold them to the requirements of valid scientific research, since the beliefs they hold, eben if they may be true, do not fall within the purview of science. Science, by definition, is the investigation of the natural world by natural means. Intelligent design necessarily involves the supernatural, and therefore lies entirely outside the scope of science.
2006-10-26 14:43:25 · answer #5 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Inteligent Design is not science. You have nothing to test...therefore it is not science. The best argument they've come up with is "prove that there wasn't an designer" Sorry guys, science doesn't work that way.
Feel free to have whole big wet buckets of Intelligent design if you like...just keep it at church and out of the classroom.
2006-10-26 13:24:05 · answer #6 · answered by Franklin 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The Behe book (Darwin's Black Box) states that Intelligent Design is the best explanation for the observations. It's a good book, and I recommend reading it. Behe's conclusions are wrong, but he'll make you think. Thinking isn't such a bad thing.
2006-10-26 17:28:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a word, yes. ID is nothing more than remaning creationism in an effort to cram the bible into science classes.
2006-10-26 13:31:41 · answer #8 · answered by Celt 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The scientific method is a human method and therefore imperfect like so much that we do....
Unfortunately for Christians they start at a disadvantage of having a belief.....Latching onto intelligent design, is just a singular hope for continued acceptance in a society of ever sinking moral ideals..
Their real hope is to raise you up....so the veil of human science superiority falls away.
Poor little scientists. You have nothing to hope for...and your arrogance is repulsive at best......A blessing on your hearts, may you find something that completely confounds you.
2006-10-26 13:06:09 · answer #9 · answered by tincre 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋