Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Question

Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

Answer 1

There is no consensus in the scientific community on this issue. There seems to be consensus in the community of proponents of Evolution Theory that, according to their definition of science, Intelligent Design Theory is not science. Intelligent Design Theory may fail to meet the standard definition of science, since its claims cannot be examined through use of scientific method and experimentation with empirical data; however, Evolution Theory seems more like religion than science. Consider that so much weight is given to Evolution Theory, without empirical evidence to substantiate its claims. In fact, such a great faith is involved, exercised by scientists in the unsupported elements of Evolution Theory, that this faith seems to rival or even exceed that of any believer in God. Essentially, students of biology, who must study evolutionism, are being force-fed an unproved set of ideas as though these constituted truth. Where is the science?

Answer 2

There is a very clear consensus in the scientific community that Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. The Nova episode a few weeks back did a good job of showing why it's no good.

I don't think you can say it's much of a "religious view" either. It is a deliberate dishonest attempt at trickery which abuses some language and arguments characteristic of good science to make it look like Intelligent Design is being illegitimately suppressed as a theory.

It's an insidiously clever tactic and one those of us who stand for reason must be constantly on guard against.

Answer 3

This question cannot be answered definitively in our time.

The complexity of the device that "coalesced" from amino acids and began to manufacture folding protein chains is pretty amazing. Did God create it or do we just not understand it's beginnings yet?

Evolution is at best an incomplete science. There is plenty of evidence that species adapt, including humans but we still need to find transitional creatures to link us to our theoretical ancesters. We're not just looking for "the missing link," we are looking for all of the missing links. There should be a fossil record for the transition from dinosaurs to birds but where is it? One might look at a platypus and guess that transitional beasts exist but we don't have a fossil record for any transition from one species to another. Can this aspect of evolution be considered any more than theoretical without evidence? It's really just a belief at this stage.

Intelegent Design may say that due to the extreme complexity of protein chain construction there must be a designer. How can this be considered any more than theoretical science when there is no empirical evidence? It's really nothing more than a belief at this stage.

Science and religion have both been wrong over the years with regards to our natural universe. Galaleo rattled the geocentric Christian world as much as Einstein stood classical physics on it's head. Time will tell on this issue too, just like all the ones in the past.

I wish our schools were a little more clear on what evolution does and doesn't explain.

Answer 4

There is a strong consensus that it is a religion and lacks all the primary attributes of a scientific theory. Further, Feynman holds, and I believe correctly, that Intelligent Design is not only a religion, but a Cargo Cult.

That is what makes it so insidious, beguiling and alluring. It looks like science in its trappings and so those with a poor concept of what science really is, are lured into it as though it were a real branch of science and not a religious following.

Answer 5

Intelligent design theory can either be a theory based upon logical arguments and scientific observations alone or it can be mixed with faith in the teachings found in the Bible. When you talk about a "consensus in the scientific community" you have to realize that there are some scientists who will only accept materialistic causes in their explanations for life here on earth.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/religion_of_evolution.asp

The Religion of Evolution
By Gary DeMar

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory, illustrates the implicit metaphysical starting point of the evolutionary dogma. Even when the facts point away from a certain scientific explanation for a given theory, evolution must be followed because the materialistic religion of Darwin must be protected against any Divine intrusion:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Check out these articles on the bottom of this page to see some science/faith based arguments for the theory of Intelligent Design http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/445/

Elegance by Accident? Chance as the Master Architect? - Chuck Missler

How Good a Scientist Are You? The Kitchen Laboratory - Chuck Missler

Divine Engineering Unraveling DNA's Design - Dr. Jerry Bergman

Answer 6

1) it is a (t)heory not a (T)heory. capital T indicated it is a Theory according to scientific terminology.....which ID is not

2) The only peer review was done by the originial proponents of ID and no one else, so not really a good peer review....but in any case there has been NO consensus of the science community validating this hypothesis so it is NOT a Theory so it is NOT a valid alternative to Evolution..at this time.

Answer 7

You cannot prove the first cause, but that doesn't mean these things weren't created at their primary evolutionary beginnings. There is no way to know with certainty how RNA replicated or existed prior to that. Or even if the organic material from our planet was carried here from another part of space which was created, or 10000 planets ago? There is simply no way to know. Just because my examples aren't written about in Holy Scriptures doesn't mean they aren't potential possibilities, just might suggest that other scriptures are wrong. Wouldn't you expect something grander than our entire universe and however many planets of billions of potential beings could possibly be outside the realms of what we can comprehend? If it were not, how could it be God?

Answer 8

Evolotionists will say absolutely not, Christians will say absolutely.
The problem lies in the fact that when a Christian scientist uses the same scientific method as an evolutionist to prove or disprove theories, evolutionists will quickly say that the theory is flawed to begin with and any results can't be reliable. Yet when when an evolutionist attempts the same thing, it is hailed as factual, reliable information. There is an EXTREME double standard in the scientific community.
Personally, as a Christian, I have absolutely no problem with science, it doesn't really have anything to do with "religion" per se. The three main religions in the world (Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which equates to billions of people) believe in Intelligent Design, yet they are distinct, separate religions.
We have proved ourselves time and time again with reliable, factual scientific evidence for a young earth, but evolutionists turn a blind eye and insist that the findings are biased because the basic premise just can't possibly be true in their view.
It has less to do with "religion" as it does to dealing with absolute facts, and evolutionists disregard anything that reveals a young earth, period. And yet, they come up with tests that "prove" something is billions of years old and the tests themselves have been scientifically proven to be faulty. hmmmm
The ONLY witness to the creation of the universe was God (or the Godhead), and He left an account of it through His Holy Word. Christian scientists begin with His account and work from there. Evolutionists do not believe that God exists, therefore to them scripture isn't reliable as a source to begin a hypothosis and they must create their own. Last time I checked, when you make something up from scratch it's called fiction, imagination,or fantasy.
Rom 1:25 For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Man without God worships and serves the created thing, (himself or his intellect) over the Creator and his worldview will always reflect that. God plainly calls it a lie.
You decide.

Answer 9

Since there hasn't been ONE peer reviewed publication about Intelligent Design in ANY scientific journal, I would say it has as much legitmacy as the theory that Tin Foil Hats keep the bad men from seeing your thoughts.

Answer 10

A religious view, as it promotes the idea of the belief in a deity. No link to scientific theory whatsoever as the premise is untestable and therefore unable to be proven.