How could I test intelligent design? Does it make predictions?

Question

A good scientific theory makes accurate predictions. We can test these predictions in a controlled experiment to determine the predictive power of the theory.

I was wondering, what testable predictions does intelligent design make? What experiment could I set up to test these predictions?

Since I know this will come up, evolution makes predictions. For example, I could study the specific genetic makeup of the AIDS virus in a population. I could predict that, if we give the population a certain medication, the AIDS virus in that population will become resistant to that medication. I could then test whether or not that is true in a year.

XYZZY: Would creation of a new species in a laboratory setting be sufficient to demonstrate evolution's validity to you? It sounds like that's what you're saying.
New species have been created in laboratory settings. Here's an example:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html

Here's a macroevolution prediction: Despite the fact that humans and rats are different "kinds" they share certain genetic similarities that makes medical experiments on rats apply to humans.

We can test that by seeing if those medical experiments do apply. Since they do, we can verify "macroevolution." (Even though macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time and therefore doesn't need independent verificiation.)

Ned: Read my 3rd paragraph in the original post. That's a prediction that Intelligent Design doesn't make.

Answer 1

No. It is specifically designed not to be testable. Intelligent Design is basically the argument from ignorance -- if we can't explain today how this or that feature evolved buy natural selection, then it must be the result of intelligent design. And if tomorrow someone sketches out a plausible scenario for the evolution of that feature, they can say, "Okay, THAT feature may have evolved but there are others that were the result of ID."

It's the old, discredited God-of-the-gaps. That's not just bad science, it's bad theology. If your god is whatever science hasn't explained today, then it's obvious your god is going to get smaller with every new discovery.

As a scientific hypothesis, Biblical literalism is vastly prferable to ID, because Biblical literalism allows us to make testable predictions -- the earth should be about 6000 years old, all species appeared at the same time, etc. However, those predictions have been amply falsified.

Intelligent Design seems less intuitively satisfying than either of the other two alternatives. If God can make a bacterial flagellum, why not make a whole camel? Why not just go poof and create the world in an instant?

Michael Behe, The only proponent of ID who actually has legitimate credentials as a biologist, actually allows for a great deal of cladogenesis. In plain English, he believes that we came from monkeys. The people who reject evolution because they don't want to believe we came from monkeys would reject ID, if they had any integrity at all. But they don't. ID isn't a scientific theory at all -- it's a cynical attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, and replace it, not with another scientific theory, but with ancient superstitions. The proponents of ID know a lot of big words, and sometimes they even use them correctly, but their target audience is not scientists -- it's ignoramuses who don't now anything more about the "theory" of intelligent design than they about the theory of evolution, but who take comfort in knowing that someone who calls himself a scientist tells they they don't have to worry about coming from monkeys, that they don't have to worry about learning all that boring and confusing junk.

Answer 2

It already has made predictions, and has been proven. Science as we know it would not exist without an implicit belief in the intelligent design of the cosmos. Bear with me for a moment.

Many Christian scientists and philosophers have noted that it is impossible to have had any kind of science without an implicit assumption that the universe COULD be understood. We forget how big a leap of logic that was. Why should nature follow mathematical laws? We assumed that nature was designed by a rational mind that just so happened to think similar to the way that we do, so we assumed that nature COULD be understood by mere mortals and went to work on discovering nature's laws. Those who say that Greek rationalism alone gave rise to modern science ignore the obvious historical fact that it did not. Hero developed the first steam engine, but it did not give rise to an ancient industrial revolution, for example. Modern science and technology developed in the West only after Christian and Classical Greek though mingled in the Renaissance. People who claim that science could exist apart from the Christian world view, or that Christianity is harmful to science, must explain the fact that modern science and technology emerged in the Christian west first, not somewhere else in the world (even though we borrowed bits and pieces pf knowledge from other places, Europeans put it all together).

"How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture" by Francis A. Schaeffer

Answer 3

There are two distinct main types of evolution. One is truth and you will find many examples of it as in your medication example above. This type of evolution is micro-evolution. It is about adaptation within species. The other type of evolution is called macro-evolution for which there is no evidence for. It is false and does not happen. It is when one species becomes another species. Like generations of deer becoming over time giraffes. Has never happened and never will.

If you want predictions that come true you should study the story of the mud and metal man in the dreams in the Bible book of Daniel. There are also the beasts that cover the same history. You can also get help understanding Daniel by studing Revelation. These ancient predictions came true as far as time has progressed and as we go into the future we can be sure that the rest of these prophecies will also come true just as God explained to Daniel while he was a captive in Babylon. The fact that these ancient prophecies have come true proves the trustworthiness of the Genesis 1 and 2 description of how life on this planet occurred. It also explains the origin of all species of plan and animal life on earth today. Remember micro evolution is true and there is plenty of proof for it all around us. Macro evolution is not true and there is no evidence for it and there never will be.

Answer 4

Your AIDS virus example is called micro-evolution. Evolution on a small scale. Most Christians freak about macro evolution. Whether or not it's true is not the point.

Yes you can make predictions. Look up all the prophecies in the Bible and find them all true to the letter, and not just "The sun will rise on such and such day and a man will die..." Actual, detailed named prophecies and every one of them true.
Secondly-If this isn't good enough for you, then I resort to the unfair question. It's like telling me to prove and test love. It's not possible. Your asking me to prove and test imagination or intelligence on a human level.
Thirdly-look around you. Every fact about the earth that scientists explain is still unbelievable. Like the atmosphere being the perfect mix of nitrogen and oxygen. The earth in the exact position-a few degrees closer we'd incinerate, and a few further we'd freeze. The Earth being tilted at a perfect 23 degree angle for equal distribution of sun rays...it just fits too perfectly together, to perfectly designed for exactly what HUMAN life needs to survive. That proves intelligent design.

EDIT: Your story is from the 6th. Want to link one on that that's a little more up to date?
Just because rats and Humans have similar genetic structure does not prove macro evolution. That's a huge jump to be making. Many animals have similar genetic structure-most likely because many animals BREATH. How many sea creatures do you find with similar structures?

Answer 5

The Old Testament is FULL of prophecies. Even Alexander the Great was prophecied, and how is kingdom would be divided between his four children when he died.

There are over 300 prophecies of Messiah, in which Jesus fulfilled every last one, even WHEN, WHERE, and HOW he would be born, which he couldn't control. (Some actually say that Jesus controlled the execution of these prophecies!).

You take a moment and calculate the odds of 300 prophecies coming to pass. Do you take it as yes/no? (1 of 2 chances?). Then look at the statistics you generate from 300 prophecies coming true, and your ONLY conclusion, if you are honest about it, is that this is impossible with man or chance, thus demonstrating that it was under the guidance of a divine Being (ie God) who, since He MUST exist for the sake of these prophecies, also existed at the time of the creation of the universe, thus demonstrating intelligent design by option.

Answer 6

What testable predictions does evolution make?

If you say that evolution predicts that a flower with a certain shape should have a moth designed to pollinate it, intelligent design will also make the same prediction.

If you say that evolution predicts that animals with a similar body shape should have similar organs, or traits, intelligent design could also make the same predictions.

You could go in circles with this all day.

Answer 7

test intelligent design predictions

Answer 8

I am unaware of the "Theory" of Intelligent Design but I will give it a shot. The fruit flies will produce a variety of different fruit flies but all of their descendants will be fruit flies. None of them will evolve into bananas, or elephants or strawberries. This prediction is already relied upon by farmers who plant crops. The farmers kinda depend on the crops sprouting up to be what was planted. Now, if a farmer plants fruit flies, they will not get more fruit flies but rather dirty fruit flies. If a farmer plants strawberries though, he will at some point have a problem with fruit flies. Predictions.

Answer 9

Not any more than you can test evolution.

Your AIDS example is fallacious. Even when mutated (read: micro-evolution) it is STILL the AIDS virus. It is not a new species.

No new species of anything have been created in a laboratory, by either theory, ever.

***Additional Response***

Hey, thanks for the link! You know, what that really proves is something we already know. Human beings are incredibly intelligent and can do awesome things.

Now, Dr. Venter's work is more of an example of CREATIONISM than evolution. Here's why...
Evolution teaches us that organisms evolved purely by happenstance or chance over an incredibly long period of time.
Creationism or intelligent design teaches us that organisms were created, not evolved.
Now, Dr. Venter CREATED the chromosomes, which are not life by itself, to be placed into a living, already created organism. It will not change that organism into another organism. It's STILL bacteria.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say he managed to inject chromosomes into a bacteria, which caused that bacteria to turn into a fish. That would be an example of one species spontaneously turning into another, but would STILL not prove evolution, because that experiment wasn't done under seemingly random events.

To explain a different way, let's say I got a beakerfull of chemicals that, when mixed together, create the building blocks of life. I think that's already been done, if I recall correctly. But that's still not life.
And, let's say I add other conditions to the beaker that cause it to produce a simple organism. And let's say I selectively breed that organism so that it eventually turns into a horse, or other complex organism.
Fudging with the experiment, so long as it doesn't change the probable natural conditions, would be acceptable to me, given the huge timeframe that evolution purports to need to prove its validity. That would be akin to adding a catalyst to a chemical reaction, to allow it to react faster, or under circumstances other than which it normally would react.

Bottom line, Dr. Venter's work actually proves that life can be created, hence a creator. It takes me MORE FAITH to believe it all happened by chance, than by someone smarter and more powerful than me making it happen.

I hope that helps clarify my position, and thanks for asking...

Answer 10

Of course you can. Because ID isn't a religious theory. It's scientific. Because people don't say "God", they say "An Intelligent Being," and because they say, "It's scientific." Plus teaching evolution makes people gay. And how is being gay an evolutionary advantage? So it has to be a choice. And since we don't like choices that's bad too. Therefore, evolution is wrong.