Is intelligent design partly a scientific theory or is it purely a religious belief?

Answer 1

It's definitely not science. It's not predictive, it's not testable, it's not falsifable - and science is all of those things.

Answer 2

There seem to be many theories of intelligent design, just as there are many theories of evolution so its a bit difficult to compeletly pin it down. However I'll give it a go:

- Science seeks to give explanations for natural phenomena. To explain a natural phenomena the theory has to give CONCRETE PREDICTIONS. So "all solids of pure carbon are black" makes the prediction that if you find a solid of pure carbon it will be black. So it makes a concrete prediction about natural phenomena and is, therefore, science. Its also incorrect (diamonds are solids of pure carbon) - this brings up the point that many philosophers have made that if its a prediction it can be falsified.

Now it seems to me that "creationism", that is to say a literal reading of Genesis makes concrete predictions and has been thoroughly falsified. The Intelligent Design theorsits recognise this. So they have (quite correctly) dropped the literal reading of Genesis (check the Reasons to Believe website). Is the new "Intelligent Design" theory falsifiable? I wrote into Reasons to Believe and asked for what concrete, falsifiable, predicitions their theory made. They were good enough to reply. However having read the predictions I found I could seperate them into two categories:
1 Falsifiable predictions that had already be made by non-ID aherents. That is to say they are completely compatible with an evolutionist viewpoint and thus, do not support the ID position and:
2 Real "Intelligent Design" predictions that were just not falsifiable. The best was that Genesis "properly interpreted" would be consistent with scientific evidence. And what happens if science conflicts with your interpretation of Genesis (potential falsification), well you just re-interpret it to fit!

So as far as Intelligent Design is scientific its either compatible with evolution or has already been falsified (Creationism). All the rest is just "religious" belief. It would best to be remembered that it is A religious belief - not even a common one. The vast majority of Christians (including the last Pope) have no difficulty in holding both religious and evolutionist statements as true.

Answer 3

ID is a hypothesis that attempts to answer problems that exist with alternative theories about where life originated. As such ID is technically a scientific theory. However, just like evolution it cannot be empirically tested. If empirical testability is a requirement of scientific theory, then both ID & evolution fall at this hurdle, as would most theories about the origin of life.

The best that can be done is to put forward a series of theories that fit the known evidence, and decide whether any theory is adequate to accept as an explanation.

The problem with ID is that whilst it fits the observable evidence, it postulates the pre-existence of an intelligent designer, a presupposition to which many people react very badly, & often irrationally. By comparison, the theory of evolution doesn't fit as much of the observable evidence, but it does have the advantage that people are prepared to accept it

Answer 4

Science is the practice of observing, hypothesizing, experimenting and observing again in order to understand in mathematical terms how the world around it works. This IS "the scientific method" Sir Francis Bacon fathered in the dawn of the age of reason. Because the nature of creation is not observable, belief of some sort MUST be involved. I see evolution as a theory full of holes so big as to be absurd. I do not have the faith necessary to believe that a complex being like humans can come to be in a complex and symbiotic biosphere like the earth without intervention from an intelligent designer. I have only the small faith to believe that God had a hand in it.

Intelligent design is as unreligious a response to the most glaring problem with evolution theory (where did all the original mass come from for the Big Bang) that is devisable at this time. Do you see people going to church to worship the "intelligent designer"? Of course not!
Intelligent design simply states that things are so complex, interrelated and interdependent that - some intelligence must have had a hand in the making.

Besides, if the earth is 2 billion years old and Uranium decays at a half life of 760Million years then all undisturbed deposits of Uranium should be 3/4 lead and geological strata should have a determinable amount of lead in them to prove their age. This would allow us to effectively "date" the geologic strata. Guess what. You never see it. Because the earth is 10,000 years old. Any intelligent designer making the earth in say 6 days would have made the earth with apparent age so that Adam and Eve could eat and study the creation and understand the love and splendor of their maker.

Answer 5

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer .

Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer.

Essentially it is more of a religious belief pointing out unexplained phenomenon , intelligent deisgn can also be attributed to aliens rather than God .

Answer 6

It is a scientific theory that also, like evolution, requires faith to believe, since no one now living was there to testify to either occurring. They are both religious.
There is evidence today that we can examine, but the evidence is used to support both interpretations. I personally believe that the evidence actually more soundly supports creation and intelligent design rather than evolution.
Although I wasn't there at creation to witness it, I look at the evidence and take it on faith that God created the world exactly the way He said He did. There is no logical reason to deny it, and the scientific evidence supports it. Not to mention, the entire Judeo-Christian religion hinges upon the truths of Genesis. If one were to discard the book of Genesis, there would be no point to being a Christian.
LIkewise, an evolutionist cannot go back in time millions of years to witness, for example, a beaver hatching from a dinosaur egg (punctuated equilibrium). He has to take it on faith that it occurred that way, despite a lack of hard evidence. Also, real science demonstrates that there are over 250 breeds of domestic dog, which is corroborated by the claim of Genesis that animals "only bring forth after their kind". The evolutionist goes a step farther to claim that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor - something for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence. He must take it on faith that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor. Therefore, both creationism and evolutionism are religions.

Answer 7

Purely religious.

Intelligent design says that evolution and such did occur, but someone was choosing what animals would evolve and which would die off. That person- God. Intelligent design is a compromise between religion and science. Christians were faced with science, so they found a way to insert god into it. It may work for them, but intelligent design is just as religious as creationism, and it has absolutely no place in public schools because of that.

Answer 8

Religious

Answer 9

Completely a religious belief. If it were a scientific theory, it would put forward testable hypotheses. Since a creator cannot be proven through objective observation, I.D. is not scientific.

Answer 10

It makes sense. ID differs from Creationism. Creationism posits that there must be a creator because there's a creation. While I agree with this I don't think it's appropriate for science class because it makes theological claims. But Intelligent Design only looks at the marvelous, remarkable order to the world. In other words, it studies the Earth's Design while Creationism studies the Designer. I think in science it's perfectly acceptable to study the Design.

Answer 11

Religious belief with a scientific veneer. Gullible school board members who think everything should be given equal weight regardless of scientific merit have a chance of falling in love with it. It's not science because it can't be tested.