why is intelligent design NOT a theory?

Question

Specifically where does intelligent design fall down as a scientific theory?

Answer 1

Intelligent design fails to be a scientific theory because it does not produce testable hypotheses. A scientific theory is not only based on observations of the world around us but puts forth questions that can be tested as to whether they are true or not. Intelligent design on the other hand is based purely on faith which is not testable - you either believe it or not. For a discussion on intelligent design vs. evolution by several authors click on the following: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Answer 2

I think you could argue that intelligent design is a theory since it attempts to describe the mechanism for the diversity of living things. However, intelligent design depends on the existence of an external, directing entity for the changes (i.e. evolution) of life on earth. Natural selection on the other hand is self contained, requiring no external components, and therefore is generally regarded as the more robust theory of the two.

It is worth introducing you to Occam's razor, if you are not already familiar with this concept. In summary, Occam's razor says that if you have two or more explanations for how a natural mechanism works, the least complex is more likely to have occurred. A good example of this is the Heliocentric view of the solar system, versus the Earth-centric. In earlier times, it was believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. However, there were some observations of planetary motion which contradicted this view - essentially that some planets seemed to slow down in their progress across the heavens, reverse for a short while before continuing back on their way as normal. Various complex workarounds were produced to explain this phenomenon whilst maintaining the Earth's position as central to all other celestial bodies.
Placing the sun at the centre of the solar system with all the planets (Earth included) orbiting explained the observed phenomenon and removed the need for any complex planetary dances.

So, although I would personally say that intelligent design is a theory, it's not as good at describing evolution as natural selection since it is not self contained - i.e. who/what is the intelligence doing the designing and where did that intelligence come from/evolve/etc?

If you want some more background to flesh this out, go to the Wikipedia.

Answer 3

In the loosest meaning of the word theory, as per common usage, I suppose you could call it a theory along with David Ike’s silly ideas that the Royal Family are really space lizards in disguise. Both though are equally daft and without evidence and should be dismissed out of hand.
As a Scientific Theory it not only doesn’t get off the starting blocks, it doesn’t even make it to the racetrack. ID is just creationist rubbish repackage in a hope of taking in the gullible.

Answer 4

It is not falsifiable as theory and it is not supported by the evidence. To clear up a supposed mystery, the appearance of design, it proposes an even greater mystery in the designer. It is merely a " god of the gap " argument. Look, it says, this is " irreducible complex ", so it must have a designer. The problem with ID is this ridiculous assumption that things, such as the flagellate of bacteria, are irreducible complex, when they have been explained very well for years. An intellectually lazy way to posit a " creator ". This is all ID is.

Answer 5

there is an exceptionally clean consensus in the medical community that clever layout isn't a valid medical option to evolutionary concept. The Nova episode some weeks decrease back did a robust activity of exhibiting why it is not any solid. i do no longer think of you could say it is lots of a "non secular view" the two. it incredibly is a planned cheating attempt at trickery which abuses some language and arguments characteristic of solid technological awareness to make it appear as if clever layout is being illegitimately suppressed as an theory. it is an insidiously clever tactic and one those people who stand for reason could be continuously on look after against.

Answer 6

Scientific theories can be continuously tested and retested as new data comes to light.

Intelligent design posits an unknown supernatural "designer." By definition, the supernatural cannot be tested. I'd have no problem with calling it a PHILOSOPHY, but it isn't scientific.

Answer 7

1. There's no direct evidence of the Intelligent Designer(s).
2. We don't know when or where the Intelligent Designer(s) acted, and what he/she/it/they did at those times. There's no direct evidence of actual activity of the Intelligent Designer(s).
3. There's another explanation for which there is better evidence.

Answer 8

Intelligent design is not a theory because it has no basis in fact. God is imaginary, a mythological entity invented by our primitive ancestors. Intelligent design is so far from reality it's not even wrong. It's socially acceptable insanity, nothing more........

Answer 9

Theory means it's someone's version of the truth, and often, the hypotheses work out alright. Theories can be rewritten, revisited, and retested over and over to make the num,bers work in the favor of the theorist.

Intelligent Design however, is not a theory, because it is already the truth. It cannot be changed to suit the purpose of a particular interest. The Bible is 100% correct, 100% of the time. Just because science hasn't figured it all out yet, doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Think about it, for hundreds of years, science said the world was FLAT - even ostracized Galileo for saying that was wrong. But low and behold, the Bible has said the world is an "orb" and a "sphere" for at least the last 5,000 years.

I know that I will get a lot of thumbs-down, but this is how I see it.

Answer 10

It doesn't - that is why it is popular. It seems to be a morphed version of Creationism, but with a sprinkle of Darwin.