Question by Lest They Be Forgotten: Is “Intellegent Design” a “science”?
Show what you know! Give us a defense of your position… Best answer is posted on our website.

Best answer:

Answer by josh
as much a science as the big bang if you believe it

Add your own answer in the comments!

11 thoughts on “Is “Intellegent Design” a “science”?”

  1. The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life,” are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science say it is pseudoscience others have concurred or termed it junk science.

  2. No, it isn’t. It’s a theory. It’s about as useful or accurate as String Theory, or the Big Bang Theory: you can’t ultimately prove it, and even if you could, what use would it be?

  3. It is a theory, just like evolution. The difference is evolution has quite a bit of hard science to back it up while intelligent design is nothing more than pure dogma.

  4. Intelligent design does not state HOW the creator creates. It just pokes holes in evolution and says “well, see there must be intelligent design!” Their “proofs” are leaky too. One of the bases of their beliefs, the flagellum that supposedly is proof of intelligent design because it has 50 parts, has been refuted. The creationists say that flagellum is proof of “unreduceable complexity”. This would be true of none of the 50 parts worked if they are not all assembled into the flagellum. However, opponents of Intelligent Design has shown that the flagellum can be broken down into numerous parts that DO FUNCTION on their own. Evolution is imperfect. Theories are often imperfect and constantly improved. Creationist claim that evolution has never been proved. Well, gravity’s never been proven either. There is no “graviton” particle. So if you believe in intelligent design, you must believe me when I say that there is an Earth Attractor that pulls everything to the earth through magical means that exist outside of nature, which is why we cannot observe his divine hand pulling everything. Does my Earth Attractor Theory sound absurd? Yes? That’s because Intelligent Design is absurd too.

    Btw, The Earth Attractor is the Creator’s brother in law. They don’t like each other that much.

  5. No, Intelligent Design has it backwards. In science, you observe phenomena, postulate a hypothesis, perform experiments and/or look for more evidence to back this up, then come to a conclusion (theory). Intelligent Design *starts* with a conclusion (supernatural entity designed everything), and the available evidence is either ignored or misrepresented in an attempt to confirm this. So it’s not science at all.

    Intelligent Design does not address the numerous examples of “bad design” in nature (why do humans need an appendix?). It does not make any predictions which can be tested experimentally. It cannot be falsified. It’s not science.

    Intelligent Design is an admission of ignorance and laziness. Instead of digging deeper and looking for an explanation for how something could have evolved such complexity, you are basically just giving up and saying “God must have made it that way”.

  6. There is a well written essay on this topic that I will quote:

    “…”intelligent design” can predict any kind of species, no matter what it looks like. This is touted as the great strength of “intelligent design” theory, but it actually proves that “intelligent design” is completely useless. You see, if you make a real prediction, you are not just predicting what will happen: you are also predicting what will not happen. If I use the theory of action/reaction to predict that a rocket will move forward in space when the engine is fired, I am not just predicting that the rocket will move forward: I am predicting that it will not move backwards or stay still. Similarly, the mathematical equation 2+2=4 does not just say that 2+2=4; it also says that 2+2 does not equal 3, or 5, or 100.

    That is what it means to make real predictions; if a “theory” predicts that anything can happen, it is not a scientific theory at all. Imagine if someone promoted a theory of rocketry by saying that no matter whether the rocket goes forward, backward, or nowhere, his theory will predict it. You would be quite justified in asking what on Earth his theory is good for, right?

    When you think about it, a theory which can predict anything is actually a theory which predicts nothing. An open-ended “prediction” which is incapable of ever saying “no, we won’t see that” is absolutely, utterly, completely useless. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is “intelligent design” theory in a nutshell: completely useless.”

    From the pages of Mike Wong, I couldn’t have said it any better myself. I don’t care if you give me the 10 points or not (since I didn’t actually write this), but you should read this anyway because it’s freakin’ great.

  7. Intelligent design is neither a science, nor a theory. It fails the definition of both.

    It is a “faith”.

    To argue it is science or a theory discredits both legitimate science as well as the foundations of religion. Both scientists and religious leaders should be appalled at the semantic smokescreen it would present if its argued to be a science.

  8. No. By definition, a scientific theory can be overturned. For example, we have the Newtonian laws of motion. And that was fine until it proved to be incomplete. And now we have laws of motion that are defined by Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity, although we can still use Newton’s laws as an approximate at speeds nowhere near the speed of light. We know that Einstein’s theories are incomplete, because they break at certain conditions, very early in the universe and at very small subatomic scales. We are looking for a theory that won’t break under those conditions.

    For centuries people thought that heat was a substance. And that was overturned.

    People thought that space was filled with aether. And that was overturned.

    People thought that stones fell because they were made of “earth,” and that “earth” naturally wanted to be under “air.” Sparks rose because they were made of “fire,” and “fire wanted to be above “earth” and “air.”

    The arteries carried blood through the body and the veins carried air.

    Flies spontaneously generated from meat. Breathing night air caused malaria. Ulcers were caused by stress. Tomatoes were poisonous.

    The Earth was flat.

    Experiments and observations proved these widely held hypotheses incorrect.

    Can you disprove a hypothesis that is based on the position that a Supreme Being created the Universe either in its present form or in some predeterminant form that would lead systematically over time to this one? Can you stick a thermometer in God? What experiment can you design to prove that God did not design the Universe? What evidence would support this hypothesis and overturn your own?

    Intelligent Design is people trying to stuff science into the Bible. It begins with an assumption, that the story of Creation is true, at least metaphorically, and it tries to shove scientific theories into that assumption and make it stick. But it can’t.

    The fact is that we see the second hand ticks of evolution happening around us. We see jumping genes and mutation happening in every single generation. We see them in single-celled bacteria. We see them in fruit flies. And we see them in people. We cannot see a race of macrofauna evolving in our lifetimes; their generations are too long, or ours are too short. But we see bacteria evolve resistance. We see butterfly populations change color as their habitat changes. We see new breeds of birds arise as a population is divided and isolated. We see wild foxes acquire characteristics similar to domesticated dogs as they are bred for gentleness and docility.

    If you wish, you can see the hand of God in this. And therefore believe the hand of God guides all of evolution. It is your right to believe whatever you wish to believe. But if you want to measure and chart, in short to do science, you can only study evolution; you cannot study God and call it biology. You cannot invoke the supernatural and call it science.

    Euclid said “Geometry is God.” The obverse is not true.

  9. No. Science is testable, predictive, and falsifiable. Evolution is testable – can we see it happening? Yep – in the lab with bacteria and fruit flies in just days. Is it predictive? Yep – the idea that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor even though we had different numbers of chromosomes predicted that two of man’s chromosomes must have become fused – and then that was observed by geneticists. Is evolution falsifiable? You bet. Cats giving birth to dogs, animals that are half lizard on top and half bird on the bottom, rabbits in the cretatous periods, all these things could show serious problems with the theory of evolution. But we don’t observe them. Everything we observe points to evolution.

    Now, on to ID. Is it testable? No. We don’t see a creator producing new species. There’s no way to test for design. Is it predictive? No. The idea that a creator is making everything the way it is tells us nothing about what’s to come. It’s not useful in the least. Finally, is it falsifiable? No. There is nothing in the idea of intelligent design that could possibly prove it wrong or flawed. Every single thing could be explained by ‘maybe god wanted it that way’ or ‘who are you to question god’.

    So no. Intelligent design is not science.

  10. a) Intelligent Design is not a science as it is unable to explain with credible evidence (no the bible does not count as evidence) the workings or origin of the world around us.

    b) Intelligent design is a Theory, one which is unsubstantiated by any evidence or facts.

    c) Theory is a context sensitive word. The Theory of Evolution is not guesswork, it is fact (in the same way that the Theory of relativity is fact). However, when referring to Intelligent Design the word theory takes on its alternate meaning of ‘a speculation’.

    Bottom line is, Intelligent Design is full of claims which contradict each other, violate several proven laws of physics, ignore certain other proven scientific facts, and is altered seemingly everyday just to make the story ‘fit’ (e.g the recently added statement that dinosaurs lived at the same time as adam and eve). I.D is a narrowminded, desperate attempt of fundamental religious people to hold onto their beliefs in a world that no longer needs those beliefs to explain the world around us…

  11. First, if you want to claim something is a science, spell it correctly! The theory of Intelligent Design is founded upon a proposition that only some “intelligence” could have created the universe. It says that the universe could not have been created unless some kind of intelligence did it. But those believers don’t offer a meaningful definition of “intelligence”. For example, if “intelligence” includes “the laws of nature”, then there is no controversy. The believers really are trying to say that a specific entity, called Allah, Jehovah, God, etc., did an overt act which resulted in the formation of the universe. It is their belief that “intelligence” must mean only a property possed by human beings or deities similar to human beings.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.