Is Intelligent Design science?

Question

How can a thoery that cannot be proven and explains nothing be classified as science?

Answer 1

In fairness, I think Intelligent Design asks a lot of interesting and important *questions*. (Such as the nature of biological information, complexity, entropy, how do we recognize "intelligence" when we see it, etc.)

However,

1) These questions all have answers. There are entire fields dedicated to answering these questions ... fields such as chaos theory, information theory, complexity theory, thermodynamics, emergence, artificial intelligence, etc.)

2) A set of *questions* is not a theory. A theory *explains*.

W.r.t. #2 ... the advocates of ID fail to understand the nature of what constitutes an *explanation*, much less a scientific one.

An explanation (especially a *scientific* explanation), needs to describe a complex concept in terms of simpler ones. The "intelligent designer" answer does precisely the opposite. By *definition* an "intelligent designer" is more complex than the things it designs. Therefore you've just explained a complex concept in terms of something MORE complex. That is why it fails, every time, as an explanation, much less a *scientific* explanation.

And yes, there is also the *testability* question. If your hypothesis ("intelligent designer") does not include a description of the laws and parameters under which that being operates ... or worse, if you consider the possibilty that this being doesn't have to operate under any laws or parameters at all (!) ... then there is no way to test for it. This is to say nothing of the *motives* of that being (which is what you introduce when you say "intelligent" ... as that includes the notion of intentionality and motive).

I.e. it's an interesting course to explore at the University graduate level (when one already has a grounding in all these different fields).

But I find it deplorable that there are people who actually want to teach this interesting, but still esoteric and half-baked idea, in grade school and high school *science* classes as a legitimized "alternative" to evolution! As evidenced by the questions here on YA, most of these kids are already so confused about the very BASICS of biology and science that they barely know the difference between a beak and a beaker, much less are ready for a discussion of information theory, chaos, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, intentionality, complex probability computations, etc.

It is a cynical attempt to *confuse* rather than educate. And for this reason, anyone who advocates the teaching of ID in schools is the very *opposite* of a scientist.

Answer 2

Intelligent Design when presented as an alternative to science, particulrly evolution, is nonsense.

But it is possible for someone to believe that a higher power created man, and still believe in science, the big bang, a 4 billion year old Earth, and evolution. That's not usually what is meant by Intelligent Design, but it's a perfectly reasonable position, not in conflict with science.

Answer 3

As I remember, "science" once used the tooth of an extinct pig and built it into a man "Nebraska Man". Is the concept of evolution really a science, in that it is impossible to replicate what is proported by it. The concept of a "first cell" forming and then beginning to divide takes more "faith" than God by design forming mankind.

Answer 4

"Intelligent Design" is not science because it fails the basic tests of scientific rigor; moreover, "Intelligent Design" is an open insult to God, if He is actually out there, because it presupposes that God makes huge mistakes when He designs things.

Do you really want to believe in an Almighty who puts nipples on male mammals? Or who designs a worm that burrows into babies eyes and blinds them? Or who deliberately makes humans develop different colors of skin, and designs their minds to allow them to develop a hatred of each other based solely on that skin color?

What kind of inattentive deity would deliberately design such creatures?

Answer 5

clever layout is the inverse or antithesis of technology. In different words there are great areas of evolution no longer in a position to be on the instant defined however the outcomes that we see on the instant are quite stepped forward and problematic. the belief is to no longer examine and instruct a certainty or propose an theory as a foundation of examine yet merely state "it isn't any longer instruct-in a position or explainable via technology ergo: clever layout. Or i do no longer understand i don't understand as a result God. it isn't any longer a sparkling non secular argument. clever layout is theology at superb

Answer 6

I agree with intelligent design's premise, but it is not a science. To me, it belongs in the social science classroom instead.

Answer 7

When faced with an advocate of Intelligent design, ask them to shuffle a deck of cards and then deal them out face-up. Then tell them that the chances of getting that paticular sequence is one in 52 factorial, or:
1 in 80, 658, 175, 170, 943, 900, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000
(Some rounding courtesy of MS Excel).
Since the odds are so remote, they MUST have cheated.

ONLY when they admit to cheating, AND explain how they cheated, should you support Intelligent Design.

Answer 8

The problem is not that it can't be proven, but rather that it can't be disproven. That, and it only complicates things without providing any new predictions.

Answer 9

I agree entirely with epidavros. Its a last ditch attempt by so called pseudo scientists to save the last preserve of religion - The origin of life.

Answer 10

It cannot. And it is not.

ID is the last refuge of the scoundrel. The fact that religious movements felt a need to come up with it says much about their lack of moral decency and common human values.