The Lizard Master: Intelligent Design is NOT Scientific Theory...

Display One Post

March 28, 2007 , Intelligent Design is NOT Scientific Theory...

I just wanted to answer directly a comment I got to my Ann Coulter "Godless" blog post yesterday:

"In the book Ann supports intelligent design which is a scientific theory and has nothing to do with the Bible. For more on this I commend to you William Dembski and Michael Behe. Yet this increasingly popular theory among scientists is not allowed to be taught in public schools. Try to listen to books more closely in the future."

Intelligent Design people love to have their idea associated with the words "Scientific Theory." It works like this. The common definition of the word theory invokes conjecture, opinion, or speculation. As in, "I have a theory that people who give any credence to Intelligent Design have their heads stuck in the sand." So in that sense I can now use the words theory and Intelligent Design together.

Once I throw the word Scientific in there, however, we are in a completely different ball game. According to wikipedia: "In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." You can't test Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design isn't going to be capable of predicting future occurrences. In fact Intelligent Design doesn't stand up to any part of the definition whatsoever.

I looked up Dembski and Behe, I encourage any of you who have made it this far to do the same. They are both strongly disagreed with by the scientific community, and even though Dembski claims peer review that's highly in question. According to wikipedia, "Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature." Great, Behe made the religious link for me so we don't have to go over the obvious.

This is not an "increasingly popular theory." An increasingly popular theory is "that people who give any credence to Intelligent Design have their heads stuck in the sand." Ever since I stated it, it has been growing and growing. As I showed above, it has no grounds whatsoever to be taught in school. It isn't scientific theory at all. What? What about Evolution? I purposely left that out of this discussion. If Intelligent Design is indeed a scientific theory increasing in popularity than it should be able to stand on it's own merits.

As for the original point, I did "listen" to the book, and Annie did nothing to convince me otherwise.

Comments

That's funny. Technically you're correct. Intelligent design can't be tested so it can't be a scientific theory. However, evolution is exactly the same thing. It can't be tested so, technically, it can't be a scientific theory. Convenient that you left evolution out of the conversation then because it couldn't hold up to the same test that you give to intelligent design. If you don't want intelligent design taught in schools - fine. Then let's just make it fair and not teach evolution too. But since evolution is taught how about teaching all different theories on the origin of life, the universe, etc. and not just giving a monopoly to one group. A long time ago education was about teaching students different theories and ideas and letting them make their own choices about what to believe. Sad that now "education" means teaching one idea only and not allowing other ideas to be heard. - Fat

For the record, that judge is stupid. Honest to God, intelligent design is not religious in nature. Creationism or Young Earth Creationism (commonly abbreviated YEC) is religious and that is how I would describe myself. Intelligent design theory - not religious. - Fat

I didn't conveniently leave out evolution, it was on purpose. Your statement was that Intelligent Design was scientific theory and it has nothing to do with the bible. Even so, you prove the point that the motivation for Intelligent Design is to be a counter argument to the teaching the Theory of Evolution. Intelligent Design will always be flawed because of that. - TLM

It's not a counterargument. It's a theory fundamentally opposed to evolution, but it didn't materialize as a way to disprove evolution. In fact, quite the opposite. Atheists used evolution as a way to counterargue belief in GOd. They needed a system that would attempt to explain the universe and life without God fitting into the picture. Evolutionary fathers such as Thomas Huxley admitted as much. So you have it quite backwards it seems. - Fat

And I already conceded your point that technically intelligent design is not a scientific theory just as evolution is not a scientific theory. If you want to bring that point up again though I will concede it a third time. - Fat

That's funny, I didn't see these comments until after I made today's post. I think I covered much of what you said. You have an uphill battle if you think the Intelligent Design isn't a counter argument and that Darwin wasn't being a scientist, he was a philosopher trying to disprove God. Unless you can do MUCH better than Ann Coulter. - TLM

Darwin was trying to be a scientist. The theory took off though when atheist scientists grabbed hold of the theory and used it to justify their disbelief in GOd. There are ample quotes from early evolutionists to prove this - they were at least open with what they were doing. - Fat

I like how a post on Intelligent Design so quickly turned to Evolution and Darwin when it's not a counter argument and a valid theory. P.S. I didn't lie, we are in a class with internet connected computers :). - TLM

Hey just because you want to hold the theory of evolution to a far lower standard than the theory of intelligent design don't blame me. - Fat