Let's cut to the chase. Is "Intelligent design" as scientificaly valid as belief in the FSM?

Question

Does "intelligent design" have any, repeat ANY, empirical evidence to support it to justify teaching it in science classes?

And if you claim any such evidence, could it be equally applied to justify teaching the doctrines of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


[I apologise to FSM devotees for my blasphemy in comparing the FSM to ID. But these guys just don't seem to get it.]

Answer 1

All the evidence is to the contrary. A series of random events using basic building blocks.

Organic compounds containing carbon and hydrogen form the building blocks of all life on Earth.

This material occurs within tiny spheres of carbonate minerals in both the Martian and Earth rocks and is closely associated with the iron oxide mineral magnetite.

The organic material formed in the rocks when volcanoes erupted under freezing conditions. During cooling, magnetite acted as a catalyst to form organic compounds from fluids rich in carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). This event occurred under conditions where no forms of life existed.

A cloud of very heavy ions has been found 1000km above Titan’s surface.

They are complex organic molecules formed from methane and nitrogen when exposed to intense sunlight, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and similar compounds containing nitrogen. They gradually form more and more complex molecules – reaching masses of 8,000 times that of a single hydrogen atom.

These molecules sink towards the surface, forming a group of compounds named ‘tholins’. Tholins were first observed in a 1953 experiment that demonstrated that organic molecules could be formed from inorganic precursors. As such, they may provide the building blocks from which life forms.

surprisingly short segments of DNA, life's molecular carrier of genetic information, can assemble into several distinct liquid crystal phases that "self-orient" parallel to one another and stack into columns in a water solution. Life is widely believed to have emerged as segments of DNA- or RNA-like molecules in a prebiotic "soup" solution of ancient organic molecules.

Also with intellignet design if it was so intelligent why has every living thing carried on evolving?

Answer 2

Note that "Question" never actually explains the quantitative analysis that leads to the conclusion that life is "best explained as the result of intelligence", because there is none. It all comes down to the equivalent to "a natural explanation is too haaaaard".

FSM actually has much more empirical evidence to support it than tradition ID. Man's imperfections are fully explained, for example - the FSM was drunk from his beer volcano the day He made him. FSM also has numerous academic endorsements.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Answer 3

The only emperical evidence that supports ID is the fact that we appear to exist. In regards to scientific validity, of course, this is no more valid than your FSM theory - although I think that there are much better alternatives than putting one's faith in a mass of pasta.

As a side note, though, FSM would actually fall under ID in certain circumstances - ID proponents do not argue teaching specific religious beliefs - rather, they argue for a nondescript "intelligence" creating the universe.

Answer 4

This is not blasphemy. The FSM exists to be equally valid with ID.

Both have no evidence.

Answer 5

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

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.

As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role. In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.”

The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

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

And here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

Answer 6

Well... it seems that we have no need for empirical evidence when it comes to science, and it also seems that if someone flings themselves in front of a train in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the entire movement will be legitimized all the more.

I really DO learn new things every day.

Oh, and to answer your questions: "yes", "no", "yes".

Answer 7

Of course.

All the intelligent design theory states is that, in layman's terms "wow it really looks like something bigger and smarter than us made all this, it couldn't have come together by accident, its too freaking cool."

It doesn't say WHO or WHAT. You can apply the intelligent design argument to the god or gods of your choice. Even the FSM, if it makes you happy.

Answer 8

I agree there's the same proof/evidence/logic etc for both theories

Answer 9

ID is absurd. So is the FSM. But the IPU... now there is the real thing!!!

Answer 10

You are forgiven, Snout. FSM touches you with his noodly appendage.