What, exactly, is the "theory" of Intelligent Design?

Question

"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In what ways is ID logical, testable or falsifiable, and could proponents identify some actual future occurrences of the same kind this "theory" has predicted, or is even capable of predicting?

Thanks, evolution supporters, but I was hoping someone from the ID camp could explain what ID theory is and how it fits our understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Hated Truth, I've asked it here because I'm specifically interested in ID proponents' responses. You won't get those in "Biology".

And yes, Wiki is not always accurate, but if it's wrong in this case you need to show how, rather than just make an accusation of bias.

If the question has been answered before, please show me where.

Answer 1

ID is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable. It does not meet any requirements to be called a scientific theory. At best it is might qualify as a theory in layman's terms. It is a hypothesis.

"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."

I would have no problems about ID being taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution if, and only if, they teach Intelligent Falling (IF) as an alternative to the Theory of Gravitation and other "Intelligent" theories as alternatives to every theory listed on the link you have provided.

Answer 2

Don't rely on Wikipedia for all your definitions. The first part of the definition allows for "a logical explanation" and there is no requirement that the logic be proved or provable.

A theory may be absolutely unprovable but still be an accurate explanation of some phenomenae.

A theory can also be totally false and neither provable nor disprovable.

Intelligent design is as logical as evolution, but evolution has more evidence supporting it.

Part of the problem with using intelligent design to explain the world as it is is that it relies upon an implicit assumption that there was a god/creator behind the design -- absent a creator, it all looks like random chance.

Yet considering the size of the universe and the absolute insignificance of the Earth and its star in relation to the surrounding environment, it hardly seems like a designer would have bothered to create or design it.

Answer 3

It's not a theory, it meets none of your criteria.
The simplest explanation of IDiocy is: "if we don't know the answer to something, then that proves god did it." Never mind that there's no evidence that "god" did anything...:)

Where the IDiots run into trouble so often is in trying to come up with examples for their ideas. At one point they claimed the human eye was so complex that it couldn't have evolved, it *had* to be designed by god. However, within a few years biology conclusively showed the evolutionary development of the human eye, and the scientific work clearly explained some of the eye's weak points -- all with no god or designer needed. So the IDiots pretty much abandoned the eye example, and they've mostly gone on now to concentrate on the tiniest little things in DNA and bacteria that science doesn't yet have a full understanding of...claiming that since we don't fully understand them, "god designed them."

The lunacy of this argument is that it will be continually usurped by the progress of knowledge -- and they'll have to keep looking for new things that "god did" until they finally run out altogether.

My personal explanation that anything we don't understand *had* to be designed by monkeys from mars is just as valid...and just as wrong :)

Peace.

Answer 4

sensible layout is creationism donning a borrowed laboratory coat and the two are orchestrated litanies of lies. identity replaced into invented by using the invention Institute numerous years in the past after a court docket determination stumbled on that "creation technological know-how" replaced into not technological know-how yet faith and consequently ought to not study in public faculties. so as that they did a discover and replace on their courses and adjusted "creation technological know-how" with "sensible layout". while it got here to the trial at Dover in 2005 a sort of records confirmed that this were achieved as area of the word "creation technological know-how" replaced into nonetheless readable. the invention Institute exists to benefit political impact and money from the deluded, the ignorant and the stupid. Your concept that a god directs evolution ought to be called sensible layout, yet there is no info of this, the info is truthfully against it considering whilst the "layout" of the octopus eye is powerful, the "layout" of the mammal eye is undesirable. aside from the rest. .

Answer 5

The Theory of Intelligent Design is a politically correct way of saying " Creationism.

Answer 6

Wiki is a liberal biased piece of junk. They closed the ID section to ID responses! Censorship is a hallmark of Darwinist!
There is theories of ID. Been answered here before.
Your just spamming.

And why isn't this question in the Biology section???????

Answer 7

Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things which undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries.

Answer 8

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Answer 9

I'm a theist who respects legitimate science, but I got to tell you; between ID and evolution, both camps are whacked just about evenly. Faith is an abstract notion that is not testable by either the scientific method or any other method. In the same way, science is not the final arbiter of all that is useful or valuable. It attempts to stick its nose in areas where it usually ends up embarrassing itself. I would've thought by now that science and its proponents would stop attempting to mix apples and oranges. But hey, Sammy Harris thinks he's going to discover the neural basis of faith once he sells enough books and can pay his tuition for his doctorate in Neuroscience. Sounds like some weirded-out Nazi ambitions to me. Scary, too.

Answer 10

You won't find any proponents of ID with any sort of hypothesis or theory.
The words are literally, alien to them.
But I applaud you for trying.