What is the theory of intelligent design?

Answer 1

Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,[1] based on the premise that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[2] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[3][4][5] claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[6]

The scientific community states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;[7] many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it pseudoscience,[8] and some have termed it junk science.[9] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[10]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[11] During the trial, intelligent design advocate Michael Behe testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals

Answer 2

It is not a theory. (A theory is a hypothesis with evidence.)

It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. (A hypothesis is a proposed explanation ... ID doesn't actually *explain* anything ... it describes complex things in terms of something *more* complex (a designer of unknown power, mechanism, and motive) ... which is exactly the opposite of what an explanation is.)

All Intelligent Design is, is a group of questions about evolution. But a group of questions, even valid ones, does not make a theory. And second, those questions have answers (in such fields as chaos theory, complexity theory, chaotics, thermodynamics, and even quantum theory and string theory ... this, by the way, is why ID advocates want to teach ID in schools ... where kids have no foundation at any of these fields).

To put it another way, if you ask someone to describe Intelligent Design, you will see them quickly turn into an attempted (and unsuccessful) *disproof* of evolution. To qualify as a theory, it is not enough to *disprove* another theory. A set of questions is not a theory.

Answer 3

The matter is that evolution is wrong but it's so well based that if you come out and say it's wrong, you make a fool of yourself.

It's a theory for people who want to see god's hand in creation but feel it's not realistic to ignore and deny hundreds of years of scientific research.

ID tries to reason that there must be a designer, somewhere. They don't speak out His name, but everybody knows they mean the Christian god.

So the argument goes as follows:

Some things are so complex that they can't have evolved - therefore, they must have been designed.

Unfortunately, ID has never defined how you can tell with certainty that something is 'too complex' to have evolved on its own.
It's like this:
'it consists of several parts working in close harmony, so it can't have evolved slowly. The components don't help the organism survive, it only works when they are all working together. Hence, this system must have been designed'

Or in short: 'I personally can't see how this evolved SO ... God did it'

Examples they like to give:
- bloodclothing couldn't have evolved because it doesn't work if it evolves in small steps - the blood either cloths or it doesn't. And if it doesn't cloth, it's no use.
Counter argument: Bloodclothing evolved from the digestion system, so it did evolve step-by-step and it wasn't put in by a designer.
- The eye isn't usable if all the components are not in place.
Counter: All light sensitivity helps a creature. An eye is simply refinement of that first sensitivity to light. Eyes evolved at least 6 times (in different ways).
- A mousetrap doesn't work if you remove one of the components.
Counter: Take the mounting board away and nail the trap directly to the floor. Now you have removed one of the components and it still works.

Answer 4

The major premise of intelligent design (ID) is that some biological structures are too complex to have evolved by means of natural selection, and therefore must have been designed by an "Intelligent Designer." ID has been refuted as nonsense by current research in molecular genetics. As Ken Miller of Brown Univ. has pointed out, this scenario entails "an absolutely hopeless genetic fantasy of pre-formed genes waiting for organisms that might need them to gradually appear." Indeed, the molecular landscape of genetics, with signature gene duplications and modifications, fossilized genes, etc., compared among closely and distantly related species, looks exactly as what we would expect from the process of natural selection rather than intelligent design.

In science, a theory is an explanation that best explains the facts. No where, in the facts of biological science, does the concept of ID rise to the level of a theory. At best it is a scientific myth.

Answer 5

First of all, "intelligent design" isn't a theory. It isn't specific enough for that. (Neither is evolution, for that matter. Darwin's theory wasn't a theory OF evolution, it was a theory ABOUT evolution--"here's a theory about how it actually works.")

Both "evolution" and "intelligent design" are general ways of looking at things. At its simplest, "intelligent design" is simply the suggestion that the evidence doesn't point to an accidental origin for the processes that make life possible.

The most famous example in the modern yelling matches involves a gentleman named Michael Behe, who basically says that certain complex biochemical actions would not have developed by themselves. One analogy he uses is the mousetrap--four simple parts, none of which is of any use by itself, no two of which is of any use by itself, no three of which is of any use by itself. You need all four, and they have to be arranged just so. He refers to this as "irreducible complexity"--a complex device that is useless in any halfway - developed state.

He and the other advocates of intelligent design basically say, "If we saw this kind of complexity and development in any field other than biology, we would assume that some intelligence had a hand in designing the items in question. Why is life the ONLY thing that HAD to develop purely by accident?"

"Intelligent design" as such has nothing at all to say about what kind of "intelligence" was involved. But of course the religious types immediately jumped in and said "Ah-HA! GOD!!!" And the people who think that only an atheist can be a scientist jumped in and said "Ah-HA! FRAUD AND/OR IDIOCY!!!" And so we may never learn anything out of this--all the facts being buried in the mudslinging.

Answer 6

Intelligent design is NOT a THEORY!! A theory is BASED in fact gathered from EXPERIMENTATION and OBSERVATION!

A theory is formed after repeating the scientific research method over and over again. Your hypothesis must be backed up repeatedly by the data gathered from the experimentation. If your hypothesis is proved correct EVERY TIME anyone repeats the experiment, then the hypothesis may progress to become a theory.

A theory is based on what the experimentation and observation indicates as a true answer.