Why is Intelligent Design considered pseudo-science?

Question

What Criteria does it not fulfill?

Answer 1

Because, as the term is commonly used (saying the Earth and everything on it was created 6000 years ago), it simply denies (without scientific evidence) solid scientific facts concerning the age of the Earth and the long development of a succession of forms of life. Science involves accepting scientific truth.

There is a version of intelligent design that does not have that problem. That version says that man was created by a creator starting 13 billion years ago and using an intelligent design that includes the Big Bang, evolution, etc. That version is not science (because there is no scientific evidence for it), but it does not deny or conflict with any scientific facts.

There are new Earth creationists and old Earth creationists. The former are not scientists, many of the latter are. See:

www.reasons.org

for one old Earth creationist scientists' website.

Answer 2

Oh, this one is too easy. There is NO RESEARCH even being conducted today based on the Intelligent Design hypothesis! NONE. Everybody that's writing about it is doing so without any real research backing at all, except by reading papers in biology and evolution. Science is the process of first

1) Making an hypothesis, along with the general theory
2) Suggesting means of verifying the hypothesis
3) And then following through with those means.

So far, ID is still stuck at 1), with NO field studies.

Another measure of an effective or active field of science is the number of times papers submitted are referenced or cited by other papers or works, as part of a growing network of shared knowledge base. Again, ID papers, when tracked for this kind of interconnectivity among other branches of science, is vritually a black hole. It's not proven to be of any value in any other branch of science, with few if any citations of ID work, except by other ID'ers.

Answer 3

There is no direct evidence of an Intelligent Designer -- no way of measuring the Intelligent Designer, no way of distinguishing between acts of the Intelligent Designer and the likelihood of evolution.

The evidence for "exotic dark matter" is now greater than the evidence for Intelligent Designer.

Answer 4

Intelligent Design fails to make any meaningful, testable predictions that would make it superior to the mainstream theories it hopes to replace. It also fails to demonstrate where it is superior to current theory.

It also comes in for considerable derision because many of the arguments put forth in its favor (regarding evolution of the eye, for example) are easily refuted by anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject.

Finally, I think it fails the test of intellectual honesty by steadfastly refusing to investigate the question of who the designer is and what his/her/their/its/our methods and motives might be. The reason for this, of course, is that ID is religious dogma disguised as science, and none of its proponents would like to see the nature and existence of their god opened to rational argument. For example, you could easily speculate that if there was a designer, it was no sort of supreme being, given the number of design compromises, kludges, and false starts we see in the "design" of the natural world.

Answer 5

Definition of pseudoscience: Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus.

So it looks like until there is a scientific method involved and it can be tested, it will be considered as a pseudoscience.

Answer 6

Critics of Intelligent Design adhere to a strict humanistic philosophy, and outright deny the existence of God because God cannot be measured or gauged.

Even with the idea that scientists begin from skepticism, and that they are beacons of rationality and logic, they are still people and have egos and points of view that are human and flawed.

Modern science likes to discount the idea of faith, but the simple truth of the matter is this: no one knows the real answer. No one has a crystal ball or a magic font that gives them all knowledge and all power. No matter what kind of intelligence we develop as humans, we are always going to be small, temporal creatures in this vast universe that can barely see around the next corner, let alone unlock the secrets of our origins and our meaning.

Let me give you a real world example from the history of science and rationality. Lord Kelvin was the premiere scientist of his age (late 19th century – he is most famous for discovering absolute cold and the corresponding temperature scale named for him ie. Zero Kelvin). He was a pillar of the things that science holds dear: rationality, skepticism, thorough evidence, etc. He was quoted as saying some things that, in hindsight, were about as ludicrous as you can get.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible ... I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of ... I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.” This was said (in parts) circa 1895. About 8 years later, The Wright Bros flew in Kitty Hawk. Hmmm, a pillar of rationality and a great judge of science, I guess.

“Radio has no future.” Howard Stern disagrees.

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” Hey, Lord Kelvin: Stephen Hawking called. He wants his smug arrogance back.

“X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” Ouch, I broke my arm! What ever will I do?

THIS is what we “knew” in the late 19th century. What will we “know” in 50 years? In 100? In 2000?

So, to sum it up, you need faith. Faith is always a component of whatever belief structure you choose. You don’t have a crystal ball. You can’t do the math on Everything.

Which ever path you choose, which ever way you go, faith-based belief is a vital component.

The only question is: in what will you put your faith?

And to you evolutionists / scientists / humanists: prove me wrong.

I’ll save you the time: you can’t without assumption and faith.

Welcome to the unknown!

Answer 7

It requires Physical Proof. Testable qualities that are repeatable.