Is Intelligent Design Science?

Comments

  1. #1 Albatross
    October 4, 2009

    Of COURSE Intelligent Design is science!
    If by “science” you mean “Begin with your conclusion, rework the evidence to fit the premise, ignore evidence that does not fit the premise, and mock anyone who challenges you.”
    Then all you have to do is redefine “peer review” as “circle jerk” and you’re good!

  2. #2 NewEnglandBob
    October 4, 2009

    No. All that needs to be said on the topic.

  3. #3 RoepieRoepie
    October 4, 2009

    Of course Intelligent Design is science. We have a lot of technology made possible by intelligent design. The computer you are working with is designed by intelligent people. And… oh. Oops.

    Intelligent Design is not science. It’s not even pseudoscience. It’s not even a theory. It’s pure fantasy. An invisible magician created everything out of nothing while he was nowhere and never. He created earth, the solar system and billions and billions of other star systems and planets. While the forming of life was inevitable, the great magician decided to stop nature from happening and started to design animals and plants. In heaven.

    Then a couple was sent to earth where designed animals did their stuff although the magician did not design the animals to particular behavior, except if the magician knew that the couple had to leave his designed heaven where hell was lurking.

    Gladly, the magician designed gender and genitals and such as well, while there was no need. Yeah, the all knowing magician from nowhere and never put a break on nature and decided to design nature like nature, but made sure that nature would never behave like nature. And however nothing weird is observed while examining evolving species the great invisible magician is still there. Everywhere. Evolution is not happening. Changing species is just degeneration. Like insects becoming resistant to poison, poor insects. Or like the flu virus that changes to become more contagious. Poor virus, uses processes at its host that do not exist because there is no such thing as evolution.

    ID is utter crap. The world is not flat.

  4. #4 ABM
    October 4, 2009

    Do we need to keep chewing this over? Really? We KNOW the belief of “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory. The fundamentalist Christians don’t even believe it’s a scientific theory – that’s just the facade they put on because they don’t have the power to force their faith down others’ throats. The Dover trial showed that they only change the wording in the textbooks because “creationism” doesn’t get their foot in the door in public schools. The Wedge document showed that it’s power they pursue, not science.

  5. #5 Ben
    October 4, 2009

    This about is is an interesting and revolutionary scientific hypothesis, that allows for a logical explanation for the real agenda behind the appearances of the Ufos, over the millennia and especially since 1945, a sensible explanation for the original intent behind all the world religions and a better working scientific model than the theory of evolution.One simply changes the evidence of progressive design ,evidenced by the theory of evolution for the progressive evolution of design, by advanced science – much quicker than nature against a backdrop, of their having been many humanities on this very ancient planet ,which have disappeared for the self-evident reasons we an see today. If this is science fiction then, within the context of this hypothesis, so are the dangers of nuclear war, over-population and environmental degradation and for that matter the subject of Ufos.
    As far as I am aware, this is one of a few scientific hypothetical frameworks of argument, that allows the subjects of Ufos to be brought in from the ‘ cold’ , into the world of science, embrace all the world’ religions,take into account leading edge developments in science, and form a new and much larger paradigm, as to our humanity’s origins. This explanation amounts to the demystification of the old understandings and the spiritualisation of science.

  6. #6 LionDancer
    October 4, 2009

    Intelligent Design isn’t
    Intelligent
    Designed
    nor Science.
    It is to science as marshmallows are to quantum physics, though both can be soft and fluffy; marshmallows definitely taste better.

  7. #7 tonyc
    October 4, 2009

    Ben: WTF???

    you said As far as I am aware,

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not aware. Your comment demonstrates such a complete lack of awareness that it’s surprising that you were actually able to use complete sentences! Your comment demonstrates that evolution is not directional (upwards, ever upwards!) and that humans (at least in your case) do not occupy the pinnacle of perfection (fallen, or otherwise)!

    The words don’t mean what you think they mean.

  8. #8 EMJ
    October 5, 2009

    Is Intelligent Design science? No.

  9. #9 Sigmund
    October 5, 2009

    I think I can present two logical arguments in favor of Intelligent Design as science.
    First that it is compatible with science.

    1. Some intelligent design supporters are scientists who do good science.
    Therefore Intelligent Design is compatible with science.

    (If the NCSE can make this argument in regards religion being compatible with science then whats stopping us making the same argument about Intelligent Design?)

    2. More seriously.
    I think Intelligent Design is applicable to the science of archeology.
    The major flaw with ID theory in regards biology is that they have no designer to point towards as the source of the design. In archaeology there is man – the only known intelligent designer.
    I think it is reasonable to suggest that looking for signs of man made design is a useful way to approach the archaeological record of an unexplored site.

    OK, both points are slightly away from the intended point of Intelligent Design and evolution (where it certainly is not compatible with science, in my view) but it just shows that you need to define your points very carefully on these questions or you unwittingly provide a lot of leeway for obtuse answers (such as the current accomodationist kerfuffle on ‘Thoughts from Kansas’).

  10. #10 Ricky
    October 5, 2009

    Albatross sarcastically stated:
    Of COURSE Intelligent Design is science!

    And of course it isn’t without something that makes it scientifically plausible, like a very old alien spaceship with the blueprints for humans hanging from the drawing board, or something that supports something of the nature of Fred Hoyle’s ideas, but certainly not, when it is based on the projection of “appearances” that the scientific method will say are more plausibly going to be the result of law or probability. Even if “appearances” are indicative of some good physical reason that we’re not here by accident, the scientific method is going to say that a law of nature is still the most likely reason for it without an unfounded leap of faith that lacks the kind of supporting evidence that I previously mentioned.

    But that’s not what bothers me, it’s this:

    If by “science” you mean “Begin with your conclusion, rework the evidence to fit the premise, ignore evidence that does not fit the premise, and mock anyone who challenges you.”

    But if by science you mean, ‘begin with your conclusion, (that we are here purely by the fate of random probabilities, rather than natural law), rework the evidence to fit, (automatically assume that the appearance of design that IDists often point to is of random or local nature, rather than natural law), ignore the plausibility for a natural law that the appearance carries because this appears to be an admission in favor of the creationists position, and then call everyone who suggests such a thing, a crackpot, or a troll or worse.’

    Then I’d say that you’ve described your typical Copernicanism’ practicing left winged liberal scientist.

    None of what I said is speculation.

    All of it is historically recorded and proven.

    All of it remains constant when both sides already *KNOW* the truth of it.

    Which is why we have no complete theory.

  11. #11 daen
    October 5, 2009

    your typical Copernicanism’ practicing left winged liberal scientist

    Extraordinary. I think this is the first time I have ever seen ‘Copernicanism’ used as a disparaging epithet, since the 17th century at least.

    Unintentionally, you have highlighted the big problem with ID, which is that it is rooted in dogma.

    It might look like science is dogmatic too, but it isn’t. That’s not to say that scientists don’t dig their heels in. But after a while, when the defenders of the old theory die or retire, and the new theory is sufficiently powerful and has enough evidence to support it, then the old theory is generally supplanted. This can take a long time, as with Wegener’s theory of continental drift, which took nearly fifty years to accumulate sufficient evidence, or rapidly, as with General Relativity – published in 1915, tested in 1919.

    Remember that Darwinism supplanted a number of much more unsatisfactory attempts to explain the origina and evolution of life on earth, including those rooted in religious dogma, which is where the current problems stem from: demarcation issues. But let’s be honest, if religious explanations held any true predictive power, they wouldn’t have been found so wanting as to need replacing. Ideology held back science in the form of the Catholic church in Galileo’s time (well, and it would keep doing so today if it had sufficient clout), just as ideology holds back so many talented Islamic academics today.

    But it is true that there are issues, highlighted by ID proponents, with Darwinism, although the scientists do not treat these issues as ‘holing Darwinism below the waterline’, but instead as serious proving grounds for Darwinism. Some questions that still need to be addressed in evolutionary biology are how life originated on earth, whether it exists or has existed elsewhere, how species arise without strong geographical borders, and how human minds evolved. It is possible that Darwinism will be able to answer these questions, but I am willing to bet, on the basis of previous scientific advances, that if it can’t then what supplants it will look way, way, way more like Darwinism than anything resembling Intelligent Design. To throw Darwinism out now and go back to a religious-based explanation like ID would be like a farmer getting rid of his tractor and trying to work the 1,000 acre field with a plough pulled by a spacehopper.

  12. #12 Richard Eis
    October 5, 2009

    What is this “Darwinism” of which you speak? Surely you mean Evolution Biology.

    ID proponents do one thing only. Look for gaps in our knowledge then fill that gap with “it’s too complicated so it’s magic”. We would fill in those gaps with or without them pointing out where specific gaps exist in our knowledge. They are merely getting in the way.

    ID is not science by definition. Nor is it science in it’s application. Nor in it’s ideology and method.

  13. #13 daen
    October 5, 2009

    What is this “Darwinism” of which you speak? Surely you mean Evolution Biology.

    I mean “the modern evolutionary synthesis”, or neo-Darwinism, but not evolutionary biology as a whole, as some ongoing work concerns proposed non-Darwinian aspects of evolution.

  14. #14 amphiox
    October 5, 2009

    Well “Intelligent” design, as its current proponents “practice” (term used very loosely) applies (term used even more loosely) to biology, so parallels with archeology, forensics, etc, aren’t directly relevant.

    It is possible, I suppose, that some time in the future a legitimate science of biological intelligent design might arise, if for example humans succeed in developing synthetic lifeforms and start filling up the biosphere with them and their naturally evolving progeny. Or, further in the future, if alien biospheres are discovered, part of the search of ETI might include trying to determine if past alien civilizations left any discernable evidence of their existence in terms of alterations they may have made on their biosphere that might still be detectable millions or billions of years afterwards.

    I’m fairly certain that if such a science develops, it will have no resemblance whatsoever to what current ID “theorists” are babbling about today. Indeed, the development of this future science will probably be hindered by the memory of today’s ID and the embarrassment it will generate whenever someone is trying to apply for a grant, or recruit graduate students, or something.

  15. #15 Mark
    October 13, 2009

    This is an interesting site http://www.sciencevsevolution.com

  16. #16 Bill
    October 13, 2009

    Interesting how many people are so fearful of true science and the God of the Bible i never hear them trash false Gods like Buddha or Mohammad, Confucius ect.

    I will just let all of you have the last word.

    Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 ΒΆ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Current ye@r *