let's put intelligent design to the test... shall we?

Question

it should be known though that in order for it to be accepted as a valid scientific theory that it needs to be subjected to the scientific method and pass. so, let's try it. first one to make it all the way through step four without a negation of the theory will get my vote for intelligent design.

1. Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
2. Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[18]
3. Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)
4. Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Answer 1

You are 100% correct. This so called theory is nothing unless it is put to the test. The ultimate test is to test the null hypothesis and see if "Intelligent design" comes out at the end.



Quite simply though Intelligent design is untestable and is not science. It is a kop out for religious people who want to add justification to their beliefs. It is strange that these same Christians probably argue that they don't need proof and that God is experienced in the heart. if that is true, why do they need to invent psuedoscience to try to convince the unbelievers?



Maybe someone should point out to vanille that we have the technology to create a big bang in the laboratory!



A singularity is packed full of energy in the form of gravity, and heat. That is where the energy came from. Imagine the universe condensed into a singularity. That is one hell of a ball of energy.



Also, let's say God created the earth and the universe and the conditions that exist in the universe. Where did the energy come from for that universe? Remember that energy cannot be created or destroyed but simply moves from one medium to another. It's called the conservation of energy. Nobody has yet discovered "God Energy"! God can't break the laws of physics.



Also schneb, nobody said that mutation and creation of DNA just happened. It is a response to environmental conditions. For instance NASA have just shown that a certain bacteria becomes 3 times as infectious in zero gravity conditions. It responded to environmental changes. We see mutation every day and year. Animals with 2 heads, children with multiple limbs, no limbs, etc all resulting from responses to various drugs which affect DNA and proteins or as response to environmental conditions.



If God created us why did he only create us in such a large space filled universe. I mean if he is so mighty surely he wouldn't have stopped there.

Answer 2

It already has made predictions, and has been proven. Science as we know it would not exist without an implicit belief in the intelligent design of the cosmos. Bear with me for a moment. Many Christian scientists and philosophers have noted that it is impossible to have had any kind of science without an implicit assumption that the universe COULD be understood. We forget how big a leap of logic that was. Why should nature follow mathematical laws? We assumed that nature was designed by a rational mind that just so happened to think similar to the way that we do, so we assumed that nature COULD be understood by mere mortals and went to work on discovering nature's laws. Those who say that Greek rationalism alone gave rise to modern science ignore the obvious historical fact that it did not. Hero developed the first steam engine, but it did not give rise to an ancient industrial revolution, for example. Modern science and technology developed in the West only after Christian and Classical Greek though mingled in the Renaissance. People who claim that science could exist apart from the Christian world view, or that Christianity is harmful to science, must explain the fact that modern science and technology emerged in the Christian west first, not somewhere else in the world (even though we borrowed bits and pieces pf knowledge from other places, Europeans put it all together). "How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture" by Francis A. Schaeffer

Answer 3

I am not a scientist, but I will do my best.



1. Characterizations

Complexity of form with the math pointing to improbability for natural selection to manipulate into such mechanisms.



2. Hypotheses

Mathematical probability of form and function coming together into order.



3. Predictions

Prediction only assumes that the design continues. The designer finished the design process, then rested. From there, designed adaption took over.



4. Experiments

Discover with new instrumentation and revelation the complexity of nature and science without the bias of it all "just happening with no outside influence". Unravel the code of DNA or the mechanism of the immune system.

Answer 4

I am not a scientist but i agree with schneb, God created all, variations in species are from adaptation, not evolution. The probability that the entire universe stemmed from the"big bang" is the most unscientific idea EVER! Lets examine this, if there was such an event, it would have had to have energy, WHERE did the energy come from?? Also lets take into account Newtons first law. If there was a big bang that threw all the galaxies and planets and all into existance, how do u explain the fact that some planets(venus, uranus and pluto) rotate opposite the other planets.

Answer 5

As a Christian and a science/engineering student, I totallly agree with this scientific analysis (after all, this is what all empirical sciences are here for).



However, I also believe there are flaws for both theories.

For those who stringently believe in intelligent design, there are problems with that (as the asker already knows).



However, I also have problems with the theory of microevolution - where is the observations required? No scientist has witnessed microevolution; there are those who believe in microevolution with no shred of evidence to support it.

I am not rejecting microevolution - I'm saying that there the belief in it requires faith, which is contradictory to the scientific model.

Answer 6

Here are some questions you need to answer:



1. DESIGN DETECTION. If the universe, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we know it? Do reliable methods for detecting design exist? What are they? Are such methods employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis? Could they conceivably detect design in biological systems?



2. RELEVANCE OF SETI. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that searches for signs of non-human intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise search for signs of non-human intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?



3. BIOLOGY’S INFORMATION PROBLEM. What explains the origin of complex information-rich patterns in biological systems? Could biological systems exhibit informational patterns that cannot be adequately be explained by natural selection and other material mechanisms? What would such patterns look like?



4. MOLECULAR MACHINES. Can you give examples of structures in the cell that resemble machines designed by humans? Does the complexity of these molecular

machines rival artifactual machines made by humans? Is there any solid evidence that such machines could have arisen apart from actual design?



5. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Are there complex biological systems whose parts are all indispensable for the systems to perform their functions? If so, are such “irreducibly complex” systems evidence of intelligent design? If not, why not?



6. REUSABLE PARTS. Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms likewise reuse of structures that work well (the camera eye, for example). Is this evidence for common descent, evolutionary convergence, common design, or a combination of these? How do we decide among these options?



7. REVERSE ENGINEERING. In trying to understand biological systems, molecular biologists need to “reverse engineer” them. In other words, they start with functional biological systems and then use their knowledge of engineering to determine how the systems could have been designed and built. Is this evidence that the systems were engineered to begin with?



8. PREDICTIONS. Do intelligent design theory and neo-Darwinian theory make different predictions? Consider, for instance, junk DNA. For which of the two theories

would the idea that large stretches of DNA are junk be more plausible? Which theory is more likely to look for unknown uses of seemingly useless biological structures?



9. FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE. What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true and that neo-Darwinism is false? Could such evidence even exist? What would it look like? If no such evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can neo-Darwinism be a testable scientific theory?



10. IDENTIFYING THE DESIGNER. Can we determine whether an object is designed without knowing anything about its designer? If an unidentified intelligence was responsible for designing biological systems, how could we know it?

Answer 7

How do we prove your null hypothesis? The scientific method exists to prove itself. Intelligent Design is simply a couched term to legally "get around" the so-called separation of Church and state (Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...) Not much of a wall there (I don't establish a religion by mentioning G-d in school)

Answer 8

You do realize it is impossible to observe that man evolved right?



***UPDATE***

My point is that intelligent design is a explanatory theory and not necessarily a scientific theory. There is science involved because intelligent design purses understanding the design and how it got here.



The major division between intelligent design and other theories is the source of life on Earth. We do not know how life began on Earth. We only have our explanations that are based on indirect evidence and reason ability. Those who believe in intelligent design simply find that it seems reasonable to believe that life was brought to Earth by the hand of God. And the truth is we can't prove it. No one can prove how life began on Earth.



***UPDATE***

There are many Christians who believe in Intelligent design and also believe in unbias scientific exploration. I personally do not know a proffesional scientist that is a Christian who EVER ignores evidence. I have seen some that do that I do not know perosnally, and it DRIVE ME CRAZY. My parents once showed me a book that tried to say that the Grand Canyon was evidence to a young Earth. And in the book's preface it says that they went to the Grand Canyon to find evidence of the young Earth. Which to me was CRAZY. That means they dismissed any evidence that could lead them to a contrary conclusion. And that also means they were NOT Scientist!



Again, there are many of those out there who are Scientist who do not pick and choose evidence but allows the evidence to speak for itself. I could probably name personally about a dozen or so that I know. WHo are all proffessors and teach evolution (even that man came from evolution) but firmly believe in God as the author of life.

Answer 9

I'm not addressing because I see no need; Intelligent Design still requires a leap of faith to be accepted.

Answer 10

I can see that you do not believe in God what so ever ,so just leave it at that because I do not have to prove creation to anyone,if you had a brain you could see it.

Answer 11

Put Evolution to the same tests. It fails also. LOL!