Is Intelligent Design a theory?

Question

Does Intelligent Design deserve the title of "theory"? Is it based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning? Most importantly, can it be tested? Just curious to here what you all think...

Answer 1

ID is based on this concept: The universe is so complex, well-organized, and perfect that it must have been created by a god.

The only evidence for it seems to be our inability to explain everything.

Intelligent Design is not very highly regarded as a theory because:

1. The premise is questionable.
2. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
3. The evidence is weak.
4. It can't be tested.
5. It is not useful for predicting anything.
6. It does not extend our knowledge.

Answer 2

No it is not a theory.

ID is a list of questions about evolution (some of them good ones) ... but (a) a list of questions does not make a new theory; and (b) all these questions, even the good questions, have good answers ... answers that do not introduce the *added* complexities and questions of a 'designer' with no known mechanism, no known properties, no clear definition, no known origin, no known energy source, no known motive, etc.

The other thing to understand is that in science a theory is an *explanation* of something complex in terms of something simpler. Intelligent Design is precisely the *opposite* ... it is a description of complex things in terms of something *MORE COMPLEX* ... namely, a "designer" that by definition must be more complex than anything it "designed." In short, it doesn't actually *explain* anything!

[Incidentally, people who say ... "A theory is a 'theory' because it can not be proven positive by experimentation. If it can, it then becomes a law." ... display a lack of understanding of science. (1) This confuses a mathematical *theorem*, which can be "proven", and a scientific *theory*, which *cannot*; and (2) this confuses a theory, which is an *explanatory* body of many statements, and a law, which is a single *descriptive* statement ... so a theory can never become a law, and a law can never become a theory.)

And no, ID cannot be tested because it makes no *predictions*.

Answer 3

Yes it is a theory.

A theory is a "best available explanation" for observed results in scientific experimentation. A theory is a "theory" because it can not be proven positive by experimentation. If it can, it then becomes a "law". If there is experimental evidence that proves the theory incorrect, the theory must be revised to show the possibility of the newly discovered data.

As of now, there is no experimental data that conclusively proves either the theory of evolution or the theory of intelligent design incorrect. There are experiments that show the "evidences" for either to be incorrect, but nothing that discounts the theory as a whole. For example:
Evolutionists state that radiometric dating using plutonium shows that the earth must be billions of years old.
Intelligent design / Creationists will argue that this only proves that the rocks in question were designed/created with a given amount of the isotopes necessary to determine an age. They will also state that there is not conclusive evidence as to radiometric decay being constant over more than the longest observed time frame.

Just remember that there are facts. Don't let one side or the other confuse you with their interpretation of those facts. Also remember that a theory is not a proven law, therefor, it is subject to scrutinizing and requires belief to be accepted.

Answer 4

Intelligent Design is more of an observation than a theory. People are good at looking at things and deciding whether or not they were designed. Watches and cars are examples. Now look at life and the mechanism of DNA. Does it look like it was designed?

It doesn't try to make testable predictions. It just gives you a perspective for looking at some evolutionary claims and doing a 'sanity check.' Do they make sense? When you look at the mechanism of DNA, does it make more sense that it was designed? Or does it make more sense that it happened by random chance, natural selection, and other known evolutionary mechanisms?

Even if you decide it looks more like it was designed, you need not conclude that God did it. If the evolutionary explanation isn't plausible enough to you, it just means you do not yet have an explanation. There are already plenty of things for which science has no explanation.

Answer 5

It is a "theory" by the non-scientific definition ("guesswork"), but it is emphatically *not* a theory by the scientific definition ("explanation with evidence").

It is not based on observation, experimentation and reasoning (except by reasoning from the presupposition that God exists).
I have never heard of any experiments designed to test ID, either "thought-experiments" or actual experiments. In fact, what the Discovery Institute (the main proponents of ID) actually do is promote false anti-evolution "evidence" instead of (as is their supposed aim) funding any pro-ID research.

Answer 6

Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Answer 7

Can you look at George W. Bush and consider intelligent design to be anything more than a load of you-know-what?

Answer 8

No it is not. And it's unconstitutional to teach Intelligent design in publicly funded educational institutions.

Save it for church...