Supporters of INTELLIGENT DESIGN - - please describe to me how the scientific method is applied to the concept

Question

Please describe to me how the scientific method is applied to Intelligent Design.

In short...

How is Intelligent Design testable?

I'd also ask that you refrain from centering your response around an attempt to debunk or insult the theory of evolution. I'm not asking about evolution so don't bother telling me what you think about it.

Thank you.

Answer 1

Intelligent design tells us that God created all things.

The scientific method was developed to test hypotheses about the natural world, etc.

So, if God created all, and we use the scientific method in the testing of the creation itself, then it has already been applied dozens of times over, right?

For example: using the scientific method for electricity. (We are all familiar with the light bulb/wire test from middle school, right?) Well, who created the atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. that comprise only a small portion of what electricity really is?

Intelligent design is tested constantly!

You're welcome :0)

Answer 2

From an article by William Saletan on Slate magazine:

Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.

The interrogation goes on like this for pages and pages. Like the theorist in the Monty Python sketch, Behe throws up a blizzard of babble: process, intelligent activity, important facts. What process? What activity? What facts? He never explains. He says the designer "took steps" to create complex biological systems, but ID can't specify the steps. Does ID tell us who designed life? No, he answers. Does it tell us how? No. Does it tell us when? No. How would the designer create a bacterial flagellum? It would "somehow cause the plan to, you know, go into effect," he proposes.

Can ID make testable predictions? Not really. If we posit that a given biological system was designed, Rothschild asks, what can we infer about the designer's abilities? Just "that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration," says Behe. "Beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the evidence." Does Behe not understand that extrapolating beyond initial evidence is exactly the job of a hypothesis? Does he not grasp the meaninglessness of saying a designer designed things that were designed?

Answer 3

Science:
"knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. "
Scientific Method
"a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested."
Any biologist will tell you there is something unnatural about evolution because LIFE seems to know what it needs to survive and will evolve in that direction. This evolutionary phenomenon seems to defy the theory of survival of the fittest because is not based on minor mutations. It seems evolution accelerates in times of environmental changes and slows down in times of no change. It seems that LIFE KNOWS what it needs. The theory of survival of the fittest that bases that evolution happens through minor mutations through generations can’t explain leap frog evolution that happens when the environment changes happen. In other words evolution as described in the theory of survival of the fittest would not allow LIFE to adapt quick enough to face environmental changes. LIFE that can’t adapt will perish. So there seems to be an intelligent force behind evolution.
For example: Man is still evolving, it seems that Man doesn’t need no longer the last molar so Man is evolving towards having one less molar. Now this defies the theory of survival of the fittest because in Man example we all survive. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest going on in Man for hundreds of years we have all survived. Not only that, but our best specimens seems to be the first to die in wars and other conflict not our weakest. But we are still evolving. Why?
The only explanation is that LIFE is intelligent and it chooses its evolutionary path. Now I’m not saying that survival of the fittest doesn’t play a roll in other species because it does. So I think that evolution is a combination of natural selection and intelligent design. There is much that science doesn’t know about life. In a few hundred of years people will look back and see how dumb and stupid we are.
There shouldn’t be any conflict between the evolution theories. They both can coexist and both should be taught in our class rooms because we don’t know everything about LIFE so we should keep our mind open.
And studying all possibilities is what science is all about.
To do otherwise would be unscientific.

Answer 4

I feel like ID answers the why of evolution. It should not be taught in schools since it is a religious opinion. It cannot be tested, unless you can test how God is responsible for gravity and rain as well.

Answer 5

this "intelligent design" thing sounds just like an episode of the X files...We live in the era of words and everyone is just looking for the genius name for everything...Intelligent design??? Why dont people say god creating everything instead of looking for strange new ways of naming things????...so evolutionists have to talk about non-intelligent design? random design? just design??? people are weird.!

Answer 6

Science is merely the observation of the creation of God. Creation is a fact. Science is a way to learn about it.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Because that which may be KNOWN of God is manifest in them; for GOD HATH SHOWED IT TO THEM.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world ARE CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Romans 1:18-20

Answer 7

My opinion doesn't rate as many scientists' opinions do:

"Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the world do not blindly accept Darwin’s THEORY of evolution? Would it shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance? Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?"

But I believe that that Intelligent Designer was God.

Answer 8

Well, GOD is a master Chemist and Physicist and he devised a way of creating things and did so.

Now you tell me HOW that differs from what Oppenheimer did with the A BOMB.

Or do you think A BOMBs grown on trees naturally