For people who believe in Intelligent Design, what would disprove it?

Question

Darwin outlined specific criteria that he said would disprove his theory. It ends up being a very narrow window of circumstances that would be consistent with evolution, where even one valid counter-example would bring it down.

I'm wondering what you think would disprove Intelligent Design. All hypotheses have their weak points, and knowing them is a key part of understanding. I'm not necessarily looking for an all-encompassing set of criteria, but I'd welcome that if you have one. Even specific, observable instances would be helpful.

I thought I'd respond to the actual answers before choosing.

Tony- Yes, it is amazing the number of circumstances that had to come together to permit life. However, the fact that we're here to observe and question shows that it did happen. I could point to countless planets where this didn't happen, enough that the small probability against the large number of chances would even out. "God made it" is a concise answer, but if you're unwilling to believe in the chances of life coming about without intelligence, why is it easy to believe that an even more complex system (God) exists without being created?

The only other answers for an ID standpoint cling to faith. Part of my motivation in asking this relates to the dispute over evolution/ID in schools. While I can't stop churches or families from teaching creation to their children, why should something be taught as science when its basis is faith? If people wanted ID in schools, I wanted to see how it could be proposed as science.

Answer 1

I would say that the lack of irreducible complexity in the biosphere is very damaging to intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is the only measurable prediction of ID and it has not been found. One would think that with the amount of specialization seen in many species, IC would have been repeatedly demonstrated if ID was correct.

Clearly many respondents don't grasp the importance of falsifiability. Oh well.

Answer 2

Intelligent design isn't a hypothesis. Intelligent design is the term used by creationists who claim that there are 'irreducibly complex' systems in place on earth that would stop functioning if you remove any part of them.

If you remove any of the stones from an arch, it will fall - yet we all know that while the arch was being built, there was scaffolding supporting the arch until it was completed, and then the scaffolding was removed - the same is true for biological systems. If a creature develops a new, better way of doing something - breathing, or converting food to energy for example, then it will eventually (over generations) lose the pieces it needed orginally, but has replaced. Now that it has lost those old pieces, then removal of the new ones will cause it to stop functioning - yet it wasn't always like that.

Intelligent design can't be 'disproven' because it puts the burden of proof on whoever doesn't believe in it - they don't have to 'prove' intelligent design - they just claim to believe in it - no facts, no independently verifiable tests - just 'i believe in it, so it must be true'.

Answer 3

@Frizby. Please read something on evolution before you express an opinion on it. Evolution does not sort out problems like a car mechanic. Sometimes a mutation occurs which gives a selection advantage. Evolution does not look at a blueprint and say, Hmmmm, that needs fixing. A mutation occurs - if it is not advantageous it will tend to die out over time - but if it makes the bearer more likely to mate it will continue to be passed on. @Scotty Jae. Evolution has zero to do with the Big Bang. As Frizby I suggest you read up on the subject before expressing an opinion which makes you look silly. @Frizby. I understand perfectly well what you are saying - unless you actually mean something other than what you wrote. You implied that if evolution were correct it would have fixed the problem of the Vagus nerve. I pointed out that way of thinking demonstrates a very basic misunderstanding of how evolution works. And I stand by that comment. @Skylol. This fool was pointing out that evolution does not actually work in the way that many creationists like to pretend it works. The questioner is undoubtedly right - the vagus nerve is an excellent indication of why ID is just a joke. If you wish to align yourself with that nonsense just so you can perpetuate your belief in the supernatural that is your right but NEVER try to pretend that science is saying something that it is not. As the cliche says - lying for Jesus is still lying. @Frizby. Lol. So you are saying that according to the creationist understanding when man sinned he became imperfect so god moved the vagus nerve to demonstrate that imperfection? I would stop digging if I were you. Your hole is getting so deep you may not get out.

Answer 4

Wow, an intelligent, respectful question!!! I really don't know how one would disprove Intelligent Design -- I see it as a politcal rather than scientific or religious doctrine.

So I'm sorry I don't have a very good answer for this. I'll look for your questions in the future though.

Answer 5

If life did not exist. Lol. (Joke)

In other words:
If earth was not 93 million miles from the sun.
If earth did not have 21 percent oxygen, 78 percent nitrogen and 1 percent of everything else in the atmosphere (referring to gases.)
If earth did not have a 23 degree tilt that makes different seasons possible.
If earth did not have an ozone layer.
If earth did not move at about 66 miles an hour.
If earth did not have water.
If earth would not spin on its axis every 24 hours Rather once or twice a year.
If earth did not seem to be built to be ideal for life.
If earth had more oxygen then it does, making fires less controllable and being disastrous.
If energy was not needed in a singularity to then cause the theoretic big bang.
If gravity did not exist.
If humans were not superior animals to every other animal in the world. (Sometimes they may seem to be less superior but you know what I mean.)

Etc. I could have a list of a billion things that can be explained with "God made it" or with "anything can happen in the 13.7 billion years the universe has been around, and chances are life would appear somewhere." For some reason, sometimes I think that "God made it" is a simpler but more logical explanation. I disagree that the world has if not perfect close to perfect living conditions because an energy that came out of nowhere just happened to work out so that earth falls right where it is with all the necessary things to support life.

The fact that air has the perfect mix of gases that on their own may kill us, but in the proportion made by air helps us live, just blinds me I guess.

Answer 6

Intelligent design, for sake of argument would encorporate creation in it's entirety. I guess the simplest answer (to avoid getting into irreducible complexity) would be to simply show that nothing can create itself. If you can bring something from nothing, you have proven the lack of a need for intelligence to create something.

Short and sweet:
If you see a picture, you would assume someone painted it.
If you read a book, you would assume someone wrote it.
If you look at the beauty of the cosmos or the complexity of the human eye, there had to be a designer.

Answer 7

Intelligent design is not a hypothesis. It is a belief. as such, it is based on faith, not on fact. It is a fairy tale. What would disprove that Peter Pan flies and stopped aging ? Same thing. You do not need proof that i'ts true and possible or not, you just believe.

Answer 8

My understanding is that the holy grail of evolution would be the discovery of a self replicating molecule.

Answer 9

Wait, are you asking for us to disprove Dawinism or Intelligent Design?

Im confused.

If you are asking what would it take for me to believe that Dawinism is correct, I would have to see blatent physical evidence of the type of evolution Dawin claims created the world. I want a million missing links, and I want to see these mutations in day to day life. There should be some happening right as we speak!

If you are asking what it would take for me to beleive Intelligent Design - That is just faith. I believe the bible to be true, and there hasnt been any real concrete evidence to disprove the bibles theories on creation. (And to be honest - I dont see how the miracle of life, and conscience, and right and wrong came to be by "accident").

Answer 10

Intelligent Design heavily relies on attacking evolution.