• The Fine Tuning of the Laws of Physics and Chemistry as well as the Origins of Life.

    “A common sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology.” Fred Hoyle

    It is important to remember that Hoyle was a commited Atheist. He very begrudgingly came to the conclusion of Design at the beginning of the universe. The fine tuning of the fundamental constants provide a considerable challenge to a naturalistic interpretation.

    ''Functionally specified digital information always arises from an intelligent source." Stephen C. Meyer. There is no known undirected physical or chemical processes which are capable of producing this type of information. There is only one known cause...Mind.

    These are falsifiable hypotheses so it seems to me it qualifies as science.

  • Yes; it doesn't exactly go against science

    As long as you don't take the Bible literally, which I don't, intelligent design doesn't go against science at all. I'm not talking about the 7 days story, but the fact that the universe could have had a creator who set everything in motion.

    Also, there's no absolute proof that the Big Bang and evolution happened as no one was there to actually witness it, so, although I do believe in the Big Bang and Evolution, they are almost as credible as the original creation story.

    And thirdly, there is no proof that God doesn't exist, so the idea that the universe was created remains plausible until the existence of a deity can be disproven.

  • Evolution is not science either

    Evolution has so much weaknesses and assumptions and even thoughts that are merely made by someone's imagination I would say Intelligent design is equally or even more logical or science as evolution.

    Bacteria might have been the first life on earth, a bacteria is able to reproduce itself asexually. Now the question is, how can something that reproduces asexually evolve into something that sexually reproduces? All things that reproduces completely asexually have no intelligence of any sort which means no brain and no eyes. Everything that reproduces completely sexually has a brain and eyes. There are a few species with brains and eyes that reproduces both asexually and sexually but that only indicates they needed to sexually breed a first time in order to have both males and females. 
    Now how could something with 0 sign of intelligence and no eyes evolve into such a dramatic change, into something with a brain and eyes? Scientists are still unable to understand the brain and barely understand the eyes. How can something so perfect come from absolutely nothing?

    Alright maybe an infinity of coincidences happened for cells to appear and reproduce and eventually evolved into a bacteria and then evolved into an intelligent being. Okay let's say all this happened. BUT... BUT.... How did they survive??? Now that's a whole different story, they would have needed plants and vegetation or something to survive on, Yeah maybe cells ate each other and bacteria also. That doesn't explain where all the plants and water, vegetation, forest ect.. CAME FROM! Because the species that evolved into sexual reproducing species needed to feed themselves and their babies, especially if they were herbivores. That's an other coincidence that the plants appeared at a similar time or close to that time. And that brings the question of pollinators (bees vs flowers) there are subspecies of bees that pollinate just 2 species of flowers which means without these flowers they simply cannot survive same thing vise versa. Flowers simply cannot exist without bees and bees cannot exist without flowers...

    Another thing I have thought about. About 30 endangered species a day, 400 a week, and 9000 a year go extinct. At this rate 1 million of years ago there would have been like a billion times more species! Where are all the bones and fossils for all these billions of extinct species? Also why did only a few species evolve into something else when a bacteria magically evolved in so many different levels. If the earth was perhaps 10 thousand years old this would explain why there is a reasonable amount of extinct species found.

    I would say yeah Intelligent design is as much scientific or even more so than just natural selection evolution.

  • It Doesn't Use Science

    The first question we must ask is whether or not this idea was formulated with scientific observation and analysis, or by a bunch of people trying to explain the universe. The obvious choice is the latter. The second question we must ask is whether or not intelligent design agrees with science. While there is some evidence for intelligent design, most of it is flawed, and the theory is crumbling as true science explains our origins.

    The conclusion we can draw from this is that intelligent design has not used science, nor is it scientific in nature. The mere idea that there is some intelligent being controlling the universe requires empirical evidence, which theologians cannot plausibly cough up, even if they say they do with the various "arguments" they put forth, which are nothing but bad logic and speculation.

    Overall, intelligent design is not science because it does not rely on the scientific method at all, nor is it scientific in nature or capacity.

  • ID is Not Science

    In order for something to be considered science is must be testable, falsifiable, (as well as some other qualities). So called "Intelligent Design" is not testable, nor is it falsifiable, therefore it is not science. It is one big logical fallacy that seeks to inject religion into society by poking holes at evolution.

  • Not Even Close

    I'd like to see an ID advocate show me one peer reviewed study or experiment done that concludes divine intervention. The combination of appealing to ignorance, shifting burdens of proof, and making bare assertions does not make something science. In fact, that makes it quite the opposite. Nothing that cherry-picks data, fails to systematically study the evidence, and declares an unfalsifiable conclusion could ever be considered as following the scientific process.

  • Absolutely not- not by any stretch of the imagination.

    Science must by definition be the following: testable, objective, verifiable, falsifiable, and involve only the natural world. "Intelligent design" is none of these.
    It relies solely on the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, i.E. "If we don't understand how it works it must be god!" "Intelligent design" has zero evidence to support it.

    The Supreme Court even saw through "ID" in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, ruling that "Intelligent Design" was just creationism repackaged, religion trying to masquerade as science. A host of experts in the sciences, theist and atheist alike, all testified to this fact.

  • It is not.

    Most scientific theories would be based on points that can be experimented upon, and are therefore verifiable or falsifiable. I can verify that mutations occur, that they are passed down through generations, that they are reflected in the phenotype of an organism, that they can be beneficial, that better versions of organisms tend to survive long enough to reproduce more often, and that when two populations of a species are put in reproductive isolation for long enough in different environments, new species are created. However, I cannot verify that a magical space wizard created all life on earth, or that the universe is only 6000 years old. Nor can I falsify it. Therefore, intelligent design does not follow the rigor expected of real science.

  • Is It Testable

    Intelligent Design is simply not science. It does not provide a testable framework. It is not falsifiable. It does not have predictive power. It is simply creationism dressed in a lab coat. Although it may sound sexy, there is no substance once you get through the pseudoscientific language. It's all filler.

  • No, and it has been disproven in court

    ID is not science, and you don't need to take my word for it. This was already hashed out in the Dover, PA court case. In that trial, the judge (a Bush appointee, no less), ruled that ID was not science, and that advocates of intelligent design were religiously-motivated, despite their attempts to disguise that fact. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AnonyFeline says2013-05-30T20:26:43.593
Intelligent Design could possibly become a valid contention in the field of (fringe) science. The problem is that it is often hijacked, or at least tainted, by creationists, religious zealots, and other such theists, who use scripture, personal belief, and the supernatural as evidence. Intelligent Design is a much broader field than what it appears to be. It encompasses theories of panspermia, the extraterrestrial origins of the homo- genus, possible genetic engineering of native fauna by extraterrestrials, and even, to some extent, a deity. The problem arises when the Intelligent Designer is relegated to a supernatural being. In fact, the teachings of Mormonism and Scientology can more easily be argued, tested, and observed, than those that purport a supernatural being, since it cannot be scientifically proven either way.

Intelligent design can and should be considered, given any supernatural deities are removed form the discussion, and we focus on the possibilities that our "creators" something more within the realm of reason.

Again, it will most probably remain in the field of FRINGE science, unless the observable evidence directs us otherwise.