Does Intelligent design qualify as a Hypothesis?

Question

I know its useless, but at best is that what it would be in scientific terms?

Thanks TT, thats what I thought.

Thanks TT, thats what I thought.

Cheers guys, just its been a few years since college and people throw these words about as if the're meaningless.

Answer 1

i dont know about scientific terms...

Answer 2

In agreement with TT, it is not a hypothesis because it can't be falsified -

- but it also doesn't propose anything. It describes no mechanism for creation. It gives no steps, discusses no processes. It does nothing at all to further our understanding of the universe.

"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?"

William Saletan


"The second big problem with intelligent design is that proponents race straight from "I'm not so sure about Darwin's theory" to "therefore the world is obviously the result of supernatural intervention by an invisible uber inventor". Talk about a leap of faith. "
Emma Tom

This battle is about those who possess so little faith that an accurate understanding of the physical universe cannot be reconciled with their understanding of god.
(from Slate forums)

Answer 3

The following text has been copied from Wikipedia.

"A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories."


As Tragic Typos said, since ID cannot be tested, ID cannot qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

Answer 4

No. A Theory is a reasonable conclusion based on a mountain of evidence. A hypothesis is a conclusion thats based on a small amount of evidence, but not enough evidence to reasonably conclude that it's right. A hypothesis also has to be falsifiable. There is no evidence what so ever for an intelligent desinger, nor is an intelligent designer falsifiable.

Answer 5

I don't think Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis because there's no way to test it.

What makes hypotheses work is that they can be negated--that is, there's the possibility the experimental results could turn out to be the opposite of the hypothesis' prediction.

Answer 6

Intelligent Design is a poor hypothesis that cannot answer questions that are answered by evolution. It makes no falsifiable predictions so it is not testable by scientific.

Intelligent Design does remain a valid alternate hypothesis for origin of life, but again, it is untestable.

Answer 7

A hypothesis makes a prediction. Intelligent Design makes no predictions -- it's merely a statement of dogma, so no.

Unless of course "uhh, I like bananas" is a prediction.

Answer 8

ID is on the same level as the good witch from the movie the wizard of oz

Answer 9

At best it is a layman's theory - NOT scientific theory kids, layman's theory meaning the layman's definition of a theory.

Which could be nothing more than something you pull straight out of your rear.

Answer 10

Yes, it can be stated as a hypothesis. Next you need to test it.

Answer 11

It doesn't qualify as a hypothesis since it isn't testable.