PRINT      
Question Asked

Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?

I've been doing a little reading on Intelligent Design, and it makes sense
to me. Why isn't Intelligent Design gaining any acceptance in the
scientific community? It seems like most scientists brush it off.

Qualifed Answeres

Where Does the Evidence Lead?

Great question, Noah.

The main reason why many scientists brush aside intelligent design is because they A) Have heard that it's not science and just creationist trash and blow by it because they're already slammed with their own research; or B) They dismiss ID because they don't like where it leads.

By the way, we can absolutely support intelligent design via science, otherwise it wouldn't, by definition, be scientific.

continue reading
Comments on Original Question

Comments

In the Word, we are told that God is a Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Ultimately, we can't prove Intelligent design as a science any more than Darwinists can Prove their theory as a science. There is no place where God says that what He created has to be proven scientifically. God doesn't have to prove anything. If it could be proven, then it would be repeated, packaged and sold. God asks, no, tells us that our belief in Him is based on Faith. (Lest any man should boast)

david jordan
PrayerQuake llc

Mr Jordan said this: "Ultimately, we can't prove Intelligent design as a science any more than Darwinists can Prove their theory as a science."

This statement really does not cash out completely for me. Science in a general sense starts with a hypothesis, and then checks to see if the evidence/data proves the hypothesis. This is why lab experiments are conducted. Either the resulting data confirms the original hypothesis, or it does not. So - logically following this, we need to look at the actual experimental and observational data that supports Darwinism (referring to common descent and macroevolution here). Then we do the same thing with ID.

Either the data supports one or the other - maybe it supports both, but it is simply not correct or fair to say that it can't be a science without stating why. Evolution theory is certainly within the bounds of "science" but the real question for evolution theory is, as Mike Behe put it: What is the edge of evolution? What are its limits? Behe explores this question by looking to the lab and the data generated by actual research on the malaria virus and the sickle cell.

Mr Jordan then moves to talking about the nature of God, and invokes Creationism, but this blurs the lines between Creationism and ID. This does not work because Creationists begin with the Biblical narrative, and then seek to conform the data to the narrative (because the narrative is authoritative to them). ID does not behave this way because it starts at the *data* and seeks to find signs of intelligence - any intelligence. Maybe that data leads to the Biblical God, maybe the data leads to LGM (little green men) but to conflate Creationism and ID is a significant error.

Nama saya Cipto Junaedy, Saya mengucapkan banyak terima kasih atas artikel anda yang bermanfaat ini, semoga di lain kesempatan saya bisa comment di situs ini. Saya juga punya informasi yang tak kalah menarik seputar RAJAPOKER88.COM AGEN TEXAS POKER DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA IDRPoker.COM Agen Texas Poker dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya dan masih ada banyak lagi review saya mengenai situs poker online yang sayang sekali jika anda lewarkan di antaranya yang paling menarik yaitu POKERSTAR88.com Agen Texas Poker Dan Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya | DaunPKR.com Agen Poker Domino Online Indonesia Terbaik Terbesar Dan Terpercaya | PokerPelangi.com Agen Texas Poker Domino Online Indonesia Terpercaya dan tak lupa pula kunjungi halaman ini untuk anda yang suka taruhan online Agen Bola, Taruhan Bola, SBOBET

Be careful not to make a judgment on the issue if you've only read from one side. I personally found ID very convincing until I read some responses to their arguments which made more sense to me, and also realized that my faith in God didn't require me to reject Darwinian evolution.

I'd also like to disagree somewhat with the qualified answer here. I don't think most scientists are as dishonest as it seems to portray them to be. Surely some are motivated by these reasons, but most? Also, ID doesn't lead to God, if that's what the answer is implying. ID leads to a designer, which could be God, or it could be little green men (to borrow Steve's phrase).

-John

earphones will gift you cosiness.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools on the grounds of breaching the separation of church and state.-954-691-1102