Is it time for ID to be given a fair hearing?

Question

It seems ID is constantly misrepresented in the media because of the dominance of darwinists like Richard Dawkins. Its not Creationism which is based on faith but based on examining the evidence found in the complex structures that sustain life.

Answer 1

It has been and has been found to be false.

Answer 2

No it is based on absolutely no scientific evidence...

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."[95] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[96] violates the principle of parsimony,[97] is not falsifiable,[98] is not empirically testable,[99] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[100]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[101] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[102]

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Answer 3

Evolutionist say it has been proven that it scientifically unsound due to the failure or lack of irreducible complexity which they feel would be found more often in mammals or living creatures . What I do not understand is how anyone Christian or Evolutionist can say what a God would have done in designing life. To say God would have done this or not done that is making the assumption you know what a God would do. How would anyone know that? Frankly it is the stupidest argument I have ever heard from both sides!

Answer 4

It already has been given a fair hearing and it failed miserably. It's only observable prediction, Irreducible complexity, has never been demonstrated. In this sense, it actually bolsters the case for evolution since if the diversity of species was due to design, we would expect to find irreducible complexity everywhere.

Answer 5

It was given an extensive hearing in the courts and school systems of Pennslyvania recently. ID was found to fail as a scientific premise. Testimony was presented from numerous ID experts but they failed to make their case.

Answer 6

Actually it is based on the belief that an Intelligent Being must have designed the universe. That's religion no matter how much people say that it isn't.

FYI, I believe that God did indeed created the universe, but that doesn't make it science.

Answer 7

Yes. I also think it's time for "intelligent falling" and pastafaraism(sp?) to be give a fair hearing as well.

Answer 8

It's just as fake as creationism. Children should be taught science...mythology does not belong in science.

Answer 9

It has been given a fair hearing, and needless to say, it failed miserably, cause it is a bunch of nonsense.

And yes it is creationism, dude.

Answer 10

i propose that a green pixy fairy invented the human being, and have evidence, the human some of them like green, green m and ms, etc.

this evidence leads me to believe in my theory, and i want it to get a fair hearing, since its so complex and obvious, we like green