Intelligent design advocates: please make your best scientific case?

Question

I am not convinced that the intelligent design hypothesis qualifies as legitimate science. Neither are these 38 Nobel Laureates: http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf In light of this, I hope there are some intelligent design advocates out there that can make a convincing case. Please, without relying on religious rhetoric, answer these questions:

1. What, specifically, do intelligent design advocates hypothesize? On what observation is this hypothesis based?

2. What data has been collected to support the hypothesis?

3. How is the hypothesis falsifiable?

4. How would you respond to the criticism that intelligent design appears to be a theory drawn up to support an ideology, rather than to explain observable phenomena?

5. An important characteristic of a scientific theory is that it cannot be proven correct. Instead, it is meant to function as a logical, predictive model. Why do so many intelligent design advocates, then, present their theory as "fact?"

Please note that I'm not asking anyone to attack evolution. I've heard plenty of that already. I'm asking intelligent design advocates to SUPPORT their theory.

Answer 1

I am in agreement that intelligent design does not qualify as 'legitimate science' at this time. My personal view is that it is a philosophical view of the origins of life whose supporters are incorrectly attempting to push this philosophical view into the scientific arena.
Without writing a long academic paper full of footnotes, I'll use wikipedia. Students of philosophy and western/christian theology know the roots of ID lie in the ancient philosophers, Plato and Aristotle.
"Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often called the "Prime Mover," in his work Metaphysics. In De Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)
Today's proponents build on this foundation. The Discovery insitute (http://www.discovery.org/) is the citadel for the proponents of ID. I don't feel like reciting their works here, but critics can read their writings and find flaws accordingly.
Again, I agree with the question writer that ID fails to meet the criteria for legitimate science. The proponents do not present empiricial data to support their idea, only abstract ideas.
In regards to question 4, I believe proponents would claim that the observable phenonmena would be human intellect and reason. Evolution, from my cursory knowledge, does not seem to be able to explain exactly how humans evolved from creatures that were not aware of themselves, unable to create language, culture, etc, to creatures that are aware of their own consciousness. One can argue whether this lack of ability to fully explain the development of cognitive function at this time allows a window for ID to slip through, but I do not believe so. I only mention this aspect to provide the writer with context as to what proponents use as 'observable phenonmena.' The writings at Discovery.org shed much more light on how proponents build their case.
It should be noted that many scientific ideas of the past were considered ludicrious at earlier times. For many years, people "knew" the world was flat, because this is how they were able to observe the world, only as flat. For many years people "knew" the sun and stars revolved around the earth because this is what they observed, or thought they did at least. Finally, if you suggested to people of the ancient world the inventions of the computer, automobile, or airplane, they would look at you as rather crazy.
This is not to imply that since the concept of the world being flat and the sun revolving around the earth were replaced by other ideas which were backed up by data, evolution will be replaced by ID. However, one should be mindful that ideas held in the past have been totally disproven later on as our ability to gather more precise data increases.
To conclude, ID is not legitimate science, but rather a philosophical view of creation and the origins of life. A discussion of ID belongs in a philosophy or theology class, but not in a strict science course. Proponents of ID are wrong to try and push ID into science classes, since it fails to meet the standards of 'legitimate science.'

Answer 2

This is one of the reasons that Christians are losing credibility. Intelligent design is NOT a theory - it's speculation made by untrained minds. It looks at an end result and, ignoring all possible other answers, seizes on the answer that it wanted in the first place. It's circular reasoning. You ignore all of the trillions upon trillions of dead-end evolutionary pathways that didn't lead to the result you see and assume that the organism evolved in a straight line. It didn't. ALL SCIENCE contradicts intelligent design because science does not deal in supernatural explanations. You ask, "My question is, why is this hypothesis ignored; unless there is evidence against it?". The answer is that it is a ridiculous statement on the face of it and science has better things to do than to strike down your "theories" ad nauseum. Come up with some EVIDENCE, real factual EVIDENCE that suggests that your theory is true and science may have a look at it. Other theories that explain where things come from are called quantum theory, the Big Bang theory, dark matter theory, multiverse theory and so on.

Answer 3

LOL, no intelligent design advocate has been able to answer your questions.... its so funny. I have seen countless questions asking people to answer challenging questions about evolution, nearly everyone who answered was able to provide a scientific explanation in their own words that resolved/explained the issue. I think it is hilarious to see that not one person so far has actually addressed the questions you posted let alone even come close to explaining it in their own words. It's pretty bad when people cant even answer a simple inquiry about something they accept as fact.... like "intelligent design".

Great Question by the way....

PS I am agnostic.

Answer 4

Special Creation in 6 solar days by Almighty God as recorded in Genesis and the world wide flood.
I believe that true science always has and always will support this. Evolutionary teachings have absolutely no scientific foundation. This is an argument about the interpretation of the available evidence and not an argument about the evidence itself. Below I have listed numerous sources which contain evidence which supports Special Creation in 6 solar days and a world wide flood.
The fossil record is much better explained by the flood of Genesis than by evolutionary teachings. The geological charts put forward for evolution were all invented well before the invention of dating methods and thus based solely on the principle that evolution is true. All dating methods are fallible and full of inconsistencies The Hubble space telescope has sent back photographic evidence of a young universe. Evolution can't explain the fact that no fossils have ever been found below the Cambrian Layer, supposedly the oldest layer. There is far more evidence to support Special Creation and the Genesis flood than what I can record here. It is up to the individual to look at all the evidence and use the brain God gave him/her to come to the only logical explanation. The teachings of evolution contradict and violate all the known laws of true science

Answer 5

Your question seems to imply that "legitimate science" is the standard by which intelligent design vs. evolution can be judged. Science is a very useful tool. But, it isn't the answer to everything. And, it isn't always right.

Scientists once thought the world was flat. Scientists once thought the sun rotated around the earth. Scientists once thought heavier objects fell faster than light objects.

Intelligent design is a theory. It can't be conclusively proven. Evolution is also a theory. It hasn't and can't be conclusively proven. Belief in either requires faith - either faith in God or faith that evolutionary science is correct.

There are plenty of smart scientists who believe in intelligent design.

Is it possible that "legitimate science" can't resolve this issue?

Answer 6

ID is basically a last grasp at getting some sort of religion back into the school system. In a nutshell, it concludes that all the laws of science are true, accurate, and working. What is states is that a higher power put all these laws into motion as he saw fit.

Basically they are saying creation happened, and all the laws of science were also created at that time as well.

It's BS.

Answer 7

The church has always been about hiding or distorting facts in order to stay in control of society and that is all this is. As their creationist theories are looking more and more ridiculous, they have had to modift their dogma to make it more acceptable to believers. They still expect us to follow and teach their silly ideas though

Answer 8

This site doesn't allow enough bandwidth to do that question justice. Check out Perry Marshall's CosmicFingerprints site if you really want an answer.

Answer 9

EXCEPT OR REJECT JESUS GENEALOGY AND 2007 CALENDAR TIME

~~~~~ Gen.1:1,2 All Exist. 1:3-25 Earth prepared. Space Job 38:30-32;
>0130 Adam Gen.5:3
>0105 Shem Gen.5:6
>0090 Enos Gen.5:9
>0070 Cainan Gen.5:12
>0056 Mahalaleel Gen.5:15
>0162 Jared Gen.5:18
>0065 Enoch Gen.5:21
>0187 Methusalen Gen.5:25
>0182 Lamech Gen.5:28
~~~~~ 1056.
>1056 Noah born
>0600 age of Noah, Flood Gen.7:6
~~~~~ Flood year 1656.
>0000 Noah 350 years Gen.9:28,29
>0000 Shem 502 years Gen.11:10,11
>0222 Gen.11:10, 12, 14, 16, 18,
>0205 427 Gen.11:20, 22, 24, 32 [ 205 ]; Matt.17:1-7;
>0430 857 Exo.7,7; 12:40,41; Gal.3:16-18
>0040 897 Num.33:38,39; Deut.34:7
>0000 898th year. Josh.5:6,10,12; 1st year.
>0000 Judges 11:26; 300 & 898 is 1198.
>0000 Acts 13:20 450 & 857 is 1307.
>0480 1Ki.6:1; Land 897 to 1377.
>0036 1Ki.11:42 Solomon dies. 997BC
>3069 & 997 & 2007 is 6073 after Adam as LOST to SAVED.
>0000 Rev.20:6; 1000 is 7072 years accounted for.

Answer 10

I think that instead of gravitational theory, schools should teach "Intelligent Falling".