Amazon.com Widgets

Intelligent design: Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?

  • Scientific Methodology Proves Everything

    The scientific method says that in order for something to be science, it must be observable, testable and the test must be repeatable.

    By definition, Darwinistic macro evolution is still a theory only, not a scientific fact as radical Darwinists claim.

    While Micro evolution is a proven fact that all scientists can agree upon, there has been no observable or testable examples of Macro evolution to date, despite advanced scientific technology.

    Because I am unwilling to base science on Blind faith, I refuse to be indoctrinated into thinking that the Macro-evolution world view is the ONLY legitimate scientific theory, and honestly believe other theories be allowed their share of the spot light.

  • Yes it is.

    Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. There is just as much information that suggest intelligent design as there is for the theory of evolution. The fossil records do show that there seems to be a spike in evolved creatures, and not a slow evolution from simple to complex creatures.

  • Intelligent Design is as legitimate as Darwinistic Evolution.

    The theory of evolution is called a theory for a reason. It has not, and cannot, be definitively scientifically proven. Therefore, if you're going to teach theories as truth and fact in public schools, then there's no reason Intelligent Design should not be presented as an option as well. In my opinion, both require a certain amount of faith to believe in.

  • ID is based on religion

    Saying that an intelligent being helped evolution is simply another way of putting god in the position of helping evolution. Its completely based on unproved and unscientific beliefs and scientifically it is completely untrue. There may be bits and pieces of evidence showing unusually fast evolution, but to claim that a divine being was behind this is too much of a stretch for science.

  • ID is not a "theory"

    Those who call ID a "theory" or disparage evolution for "only being a theory" do not understand the definition of theory as it is used in science. A scientific theory represents the best explanation for a particular set of facts. It is testable and subject to revision as new discoveries are made. ID is neither of these. Gravity is also a theory, and no one would suggest that it is untrue, but in case they did I welcome them to try and prove it by stepping off the highest building they could find. Should anyone offer some discovery that disproves evolution, then by all means publish it and claim your noble prize.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.