| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:00:31 PM | | I think it appropriate that we examine the claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory and determine once and for all whether or not it is. If it is not, it is definitely inappropriate to teach it in a science class; if it is, well let's see what backs that claim to see how well (or poorly) it stands up as science. (Let's for the moment, ignore the peer revue aspects that disqualify ID outright as a legitimate scientific theory and focus on the other stuff.) | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:23:10 PM | ID is based on the premise of Irreducible Complexity. For example, a mousetrap can't work unless all parts are present and arranged properly. The analogy serves to illustrate that evolution can't just come about piece meal and willy nilly, since biological organisms are so incredibly complex from an engineering standpoint, there "must" be something that has constructed them in some well-organized, premeditated manner.
I'll let you guys blow that out of the water as you see fit. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:30:41 PM | Strictly speaking no. But it deals mainly with philosophies ideologies and a look into human nature from a special point of view. Its an attempt at explaining why; something science is notorious for not being able to do. Philosophy on the other hand is an attempt at explaining why and intelligent design falls into that category. Science is the how and Philosophy is the why. If we look at it like that then it is worthy to be taught in a non biased way in the view that it is philosophy.
What I think should not be taught in the way it is taught is creationism. It is ID taught in a scientific way and not a philosophical. Evolution taught in a philosophical way is also as guilty as creationism. Evolution is a science and explains how. ID explains why. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:31:52 PM | No, it is not science.
The theory of ID, is that the world is far too complex for evolution, and therefore a "designer" created it all.
This is not a scientific theory. If it were scientific, they would look for an answer to how a designer could create the universe. They do not, as that would be blasphemy to many.
Generally scientific theories look to prove an idea, not solely disprove an already accepted idea. Sometimes scientist do try to disprove theories, but when they do, either they give a competing theory backed in scientific fact, or they simply disprove the theory without giving an alternate theory. They never disprove an idea and claim another theory is fact just because the other is wrong. Scientist accept that several answers could be correct, and therefore to accept a theory there must be evidence that it is correct over any possible competing ideas.
The far too complex arguement of ID just amazes me. Is'nt a big engineer in the sky creating matter and energy out of nothing much more complex then the big bang theory and evolution.
Whenever I hear someone claim anything is "too complex", I just think they are a moron.
I always wonder why IDers can't just say, "God created everything, and God used evolution to create all the life on Earth". I mean why can't God use evolution? | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:33:23 PM | Intelligent design is based on the premise of an intelligent designer. Does intelligent design contain the means to falsify that premise through predictions it makes? If not, then it is not a scientific theory.
ID is based on the premise of Irreducible Complexity.
Incorrect. The premise is the existence of an intelligent designer. If it were irriducible complexity, the notion of an intelligent designer would not have any role in the theory. Irreducible complexity is merely what ID purports to be evididence for an intelligent designer. But even if some very complex structure were shown to be irreducible, that would not rule out some althernative explanation for the irreducible complexity. Evidence can only support a theory, it can't prove a theory to be true. Theories can only be falsified. Since ID provides no means of performing a test that would falsify the premise of a designer, it is not a scientific theory.
| |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:41:53 PM |
"God created everything, and God used evolution to create all the life on Earth"
I think for the "IDers" it would mean that either
A. Misunderstand their religious texts.
B. Their religious texts are wrong.
C. If they misunderstand or if the texts are wrong then maybe it is okay to mow the lawn on a sabbath day. To the hardcore ones that would spell disaster. They need order dammit, order!
I think they will never say that because their belief systems have no space to accept alternative dogma. Check out my post on Creation vs Atheism. It explains the theory of it. | |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:49:28 PM | Does intelligent design contain the means to falsify that premise through predictions it makes? If not, then it is not a scientific theory.
Questions for the intelligent design aficionados: Is the premise of ID falsifiable? If so how may it be tested? | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 1:51:12 PM | The overriding criteria for a scientific theory is the ability to make *predictions* based on the theory.
Can you say - "If I do THIS, then I expect THAT to happen"
ID cannot do that... in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, it is not a valid theory. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:00:14 PM |
why can't God use evolution?
Because some scripture asserts that He created all the animals, each after their own kind.
So anyone who believes Genesis to be true is pretty well forced to disallow the evolution of new species from their worldview. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:06:54 PM | | But keep in mind that ID seeks to explain the orgins of things, which is remarkably difficult to do even with the most sound scientific methods available. When developing theories about such profound and intricate topics, it is hard to make it such that it can falsify itself. And you can't test a theory or hypothesis if the premise is that it takes a god or non-earthly being to do something. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:14:26 PM | Intelligent Design is certainly a premise, not a fully developed hypothesis and certainly nowhere near a theory. It is highly presumptuous to consider it ready for peer review.
The main problem at the onset is testable results from reproducible experimentation and observation in nature. It hasn't passed this phase of development at all. No kind of scientific premise is used to support it. It cannot be shown in math, it is not independently suggested by observation, it has no direct correlation with other findings, and no attempt has been made to collect data which supports it self evidently.
Certainly foregoing this conclusion is the fact many proponents of Intelligent Design do not consider it a falsifiable proposition. They believe scientific theorum is a matter of choice, like fashionable shoes. This does speak more to the individuals of this description than to the actual proposal itself. A wild hypothesis of religious extremists who consider it a political movement is not bound to be a popular following among reasonable minds.
But as a wild hypothesis the general premise is perfectly reasonable. Nothing about the current model precludes any ideas about causation of the physical universe. God is fine and God is good, I know some established, working theoretical physics doctorates personally who believe in God. Einstein believed in God, Newton, you name it.
Physical observation however will testify that complex evolutionary diversity is directly responsible for all aspects of its development, including life and its forms. It may be to an intelligent plan, again nothing strictly precludes this, but the contention of direct supernatural hands in any aspect of evolution is a religious extremist one.
Some would say any mythological interpretations of scripture at all are driven by political extremism and relate to nothing else aside mental illness. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 2:27:26 PM | | Since there is no way to prove that there was an intelligence involved (there were no witnesses around) they are trying to prove it by negation. AKA because there's no other way for X to have happened on its own someone must have interfered and caused it. Including chance. (Insert monkey and typewriters here.) I wish them luck with that. At least they'll have job security. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 3:29:45 PM | | It seems pretty clear then that we are all agreed that intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory and should therefore NOT be taught in school science classes. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 4:54:47 PM | The only reason I suggested that ID is worthy of at least being called a theory is because I saw a program, done by creationists, which was made as a form of propaganda by presenting a bunch of one-sided psuedoscientific "evidence". It was well done in that it seemed very scientific and logical. So I figure that I'd at least honor those who made the program by labeling ID a "theory".
But I don't think it proves the existence of god, nor should it be taught in schools. And I still think that evolution is not really a theory, but is just fact. We don't fully understand and know all there is about the cosmos, but to say the cosmos is merely a "theory" is to suggest that it may turn out it doesn't exist at all. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:58:31 PM | I don't get why this is an issue. ID is just a cover to remove real science from science classes and replace it with ideological content dictated by religious extremists.
The more science classes get hijacked and neuteured of their legitimate content for purely political reasons, the more we hurt the ability of future generations to understand the world and contribute to technological progress. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:04:00 PM | No, it cannot be falsified, ergo not a science.
Not to say it is incapable of creating valuable truths, just not scientific ones. Spiritual truths do not equal scientific truths and vise versa. This does not mean they need contradict each other either. Spiritual truths do not need to follow scientific method to be true. | |
|
| |
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:39:54 PM | No, it cannot be falsified, ergo not a science.
You certainly can't falsify anything that is true. Hmmm? You can't falsify that the sun is hot. There is no science of the sun?
A science, is not a "scientific theory" so I believe we are mixing terms and causing confusion. A scientific theory is not commonly falsifyable or provable. It is a shool of thought based on years of research that develops a body of evidence which supports the theory. Within the theory of evolution, there are the tree-apists, the savannah-apeists, and the aquatic-apeists. There really isn't a unified theory of evolution. The intelligently designed apeists could fit in, but have not adopted the apeists enough to allow their entry. They tried to turn it into a directly biblical theory in court, and got the tar whipped out of them. They wanted to preach creation in a classroom. End of story. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 9:47:46 PM | I don't see why a spiritual truth can't be mentioned offhand in a science class as long as it doesn't disturb the truth at hand.
This idea that faith and science are hostile to each other is one born of extremism.
Things that yearn towards extremes revert to their opposites.
| |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:03:08 PM |
This idea that faith and science are hostile to each other is one born of extremism.
Where did you get the idea that the two are hostile to each other?
Cooking and woodworking are two different things, worthwhile to learn and they are not hostile toward each other in any way; however, it would be ludicrous to teach woodworking in a cooking class, or cooking in a woodworking class. The students might get confused and not be sure which was which.
Wouldn't you agree that it makes as much sense to keep the religion & science classes apart for the same reason? | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:08:01 PM | ID is a neat high level concept. I look at about the same as a pyramid scheme. If everything happens exactly as planned, someone will get rich. Usually that's the creator of the pyramid!
I also saw quite a mixture of ID and creationism in the posts. My question to the creationists is this. If the creator is all knowing and all powerful, why would he create a Big Bang that immediately went into major chaotic disarray? Shortly thereafter, if you believe in creationism, that same creator had to step in and make order out of the chaos. Why didn't he just do it right in the first place?
That is how I look at ID. We are very smug to think we are living proof of the final complex form. There is still a lot f work to do to bring order out of chaos. Leave it out of the schools until then. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:21:31 PM |
Spiritual truths do not need to follow scientific method to be true. Something doesn't have to do anything to be true. What's true is true and what's false is false. There can be only 1 truth on a specific matter. Many of the people prefer to give more likely hood to something being true with the vast amount of evidence for it, such as evolution or gravity, than the alternative. See to be a scientific theory there has to be much supporting evidence for it and brought up that, when tested against that theory, meets all the expectations. | |
|
| Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Posted: 7/20/2009 10:24:32 PM |
It seems pretty clear then that we are all agreed that intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory and should therefore NOT be taught in school science classes.
Nevertheless it does appear reasonable in my opinion, that a Devil's Advocate of poor scientific procedure can become a useful tool for extrapolating correct scientific procedure.
The main argument against Intelligent Design as schooling curriculum I think, is the fact that young students may be bullied by older teachers with regards to ideas.
But it is also a fact that capitalist democracy functions upon the the premise of individual responsibility taken, in order to maintain any semblence of benevolent government.
In this respect it may not be a bad thing to give enough rope for those whom should never find authoritive establishment to hang themselves early on, and leave the business of policy to those who take responsibility for their actions, their assertions, their demeanour. | |
|
Home
login 
