Is "intelligent design" a valid scientific concept? (read more)?
449120
No, it really isn't.\n\nThe fundamentals of intelligent design are basically anti-science.  The sole argument used in its support is to cease thinking about any subject which is not immediately understood.\n\n"That feature of life looks hard to evolve, therefore, Unnamed Intelligent Designer did it."\n\nI like to look at how history would be different if the great scientists of the past had used such logic.\n\nIsaac Newton:  "Gravity pulls things down, but the moon stays up.  How strange.  Must be God."  (Nobody works out the laws of physical motion.)\n\nEdward Jenner:  "I wonder why milkmaids get smallpox less seriously than other people... Oh, I guess God did it."  (Nobody invents vaccines.)\n\nIntelligent Design "theory" is the death of science.  It is lazy thinking.  It is simply accepting any unknown as an unknown and finding nothing in it worth investigating further.  It is the most fundamentally anti-science idea possible.\n\nThink my examples of overstated?  Consider the real life guru of the ID movement, Michael Behe.  He testified in court that nobody could figure out the evolution of the immune system.  When he was presented with dozens and dozens of articles working out the evolution of the immune system, he admitted having read none of them, but had no compunction about just declaring it "wasn't enough".  How much would be?  Here is a person who has stopped thinking.  He's supposed be a biochemist, but he has no interest in expanding biochemistry.  He found a gap and declared that God filled it and his thoughts stopped there.  Many, many other scientists, unencumbered by the albatross of ID continued to investigate and have expanded our knowledge of the immune system extensively, just so Behe can sit back smugly and declare whatever progress they've made cannot possibly be enough.\n\nI repeat, ID is the death of science.  ID is the most fundamentally anti-science idea possible.\n\nID "theory" is best stated, "It is absolutely undeniable that someone, somewhere, at some point, did some thing, using some methods, to create life."  That's not a theory.  That hardly qualifies as an idea!  But they can't fill in any of the vapidity.  If they fill in any of the unknowns, it becomes obvious they're trying to force their religion onto the masses.  Therefore, they're stuck with a vague framework of an idea.\n\nIf they could fill in bits, they might stumble into a theory that was testable.  If we replace "someone" with "My great grandmother", suddenly, we have an idea we can test.  A false idea, but still a testable one.  My great grandmother has identifiable properties.  We know how much biochemistry she knew.  We can judge the likelihood of her having done such a thing.  That likelihood is, of course, so close to zero there's little point in calculating it.\n\nIf we fill in the "how" gap with "using a screwdriver", then again, we can test it.\n\nBut ID theory refuses to fill in the gaps.  It claims to not be interested in who.  It claims to not be interested in where, when, how or what.  Dembski says it's a theory of "design detection".  But, again, how do we test it?\n\nDembski's filter resolves to two states:  Yes, it was designed!  We don't know.\n\nSo, can this be falsified?  Can we send something designed through and have the filter produce a false negative?  No, because the filter has no negative state.  It doesn't say "designed/not designed", it says "designed/don't know".  There is no way to test for a false negative.\n\nCan we test for a false positive?  Nope.  Since God is on the table here (and they refuse utterly to let natural laws have sway like real science does), everything in the universe supposedly could be designed.  So there is nothing that you can definitively say isn't designed to run through the filter.
396045
Intelligent design is the theory that a higher power (God) created the universe. It is the opposite of the evolution theory. One argument for it is that the complexity of life suggests that an intelligent being is necessary to create it. An argument against it is that there is no solid proof that a higher being exists. Some proposed solutions to the shortage in oil include drilling into new reserves, developing more fuel efficient products, and producing alternative energy products. This took a while to type, so I would appreciate your vote as your favorite answer.
471387
Theory is theory, period.  Which one you accept should be a choice, not programming.  \n\nInsisting on an evolutionary theory which precludes the existence of God IS theology, because it makes assumptions about something that is not observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the marketplace of ideas, any time one group claims autonomy of intelligence, then intellectual dictatorship follows, and people soon forget how to think and reason for themselves -- they become societal automatons, incapable of doing anything more than following the crowd.\n\nThe puppets of bad science continue to spout the doctrine of "DNA", not even understanding for themselves that micro-evolution at the DNA level does not alter the length of the DNA strand, and that there is absolutely NO PROOF that DNA can or ever has "evolved" from one strand length into another, substantiating the claim that every DNA strand length which is in existence today was also in existence at the origin of species, pointing directly to intelligent design, and therefore a Designer.\n\nBottom line, when interpreting evidence for the purpose of supporting a theory, GOOD SCIENCE DEMANDS that ALL possible interpretations be presented, and that opposing theories which they support should also be discussed, but NO THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT DOGMATICALLY!  It is our individual right and obligation to choose our own beliefs.\n\n(Rant over!)
270102
Irreducible complexity is a controversial concept invoked in support of intelligent design which claims that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection is incomplete and flawed and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life. An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system.\n\nThe concept was popularized by Lehigh University biochemist and Fellow of the Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, wherein Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "irreducibly complex" because he saw no way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems. With this argument, the book in effect supports what is known as intelligent design, a form of the argument from design, which is one of the arguments for the existence of a supernatural deity.
340031
Nope. \nIt would be like putting mobsters and Mother Theressa to work together. \nBesides, there´s no proof for inteligent design. Just suppositions. \nEvolution, on the other side is a FACT. \nHow could you put them together?
1020485
It sounds as though you have been fooled by the\n"intelligent design" idea.  This says that there are\nthings that are "irreducibly complex" so that they\ncouldn't have evolved because all the parts have\nto be there or they wouldn't work.  Therefore any-\nthing irreducibly complex must have been created\nbecause it couldn't have evolved.\n\nUnfortunately, there is no proof that there is anything that is irreducibly complex.  The usual \nexamples given have turned out NOT to be so.\nFurthermore irreducible complexity, if it exists at\nall, would be a sign of poor design.  A good\ndesign has fail-safes built into it so the whole thing\ndoesn't break down if one tiny part fails.
817005
Yes, it requires intelligent design.\nBut it also requires intelligence to realize that fact.
1159763
The theory of evolution is backed by a lot of scientific proof, while religion isn't. Science is what we teach in schools. If you or your child think that intelligent design is what is correct, you can think of it as being informed as to what the theory of evolution is, not being told what actually happened.
989708
The objective of the search for truth begins by answering questions, that lead to new questions, etc. Some would call this flawed, but in reality we are meant to search. In intelligent design (the new name for creationism), you begin with the thought that the answers are preordained, then you submit your findings to fit what is written. Sorry, but Creationism or ID has no place in a Science class. You can not measure advances in Creation. Religion or Philosophy classes perhaps, but not Science.
4683
You're assuming that the universe extends for infinite.\n\nOf course, if you're assuming that it has meaning, does that mean that it has intelligent design? And therefore, an intelligent designed?\n\nIn other words, no.
518447
I guess for Intellgent Design, one of the wonderful things about not actually being science is that you aren't bounded by the same rules, obligations and constructs.\n\nAs a result, they can shift and move anyway the (political) wind blows.  Good for them, bad for rational thought and society.
136250
Intelligent design states that the species we view and their properties have to be caused by some outside agency, not the product of natural laws. They have to be the result of direct tampering. \n\nThe main argument that intelligent design uses is "irreducible complexity"; that is, the species we see are too complex to have been created by natural means. This argument is not at all new. For example, it is very similar to the arguments of William Paley. \n\nAlthough in intelligent design, the proponents claim to be open to panspermia (life from outer space) and other ideas, probably more than 99% of them are in favor of the designer being a deity, and the deity intervening in nature using supernatural means.\n\n\nIntelligent design was invented as an attempt to get around the US supreme court's injunction about teaching religion in science classes.
1087025
Personally I don't reject the idea, but I don't exactly embrace it, either.  \n\nLet me pose this to you:  If there are an infinite number of universes, and let's say, just for now, that there is a Divine Creator, did this ONE being create the infinite universes you describe?  Or are there in infinite number of this Creator?\n\nNext thought:  If, for every action/thought/possibility there is a separate universe, on how many of them would you actually exist?  On how many universes did life on Earth actually form (assuming evolution)?  \n\nLastly:  Take the statement that there are an infinite number of possibilities and that what we perceive from instant to instant is merely what we have CHOSEN to perceive at that instant, is there a separate universe created for each of those possibilities which are not perceived, or, because they aren't perceived (therefore not "real") do they fail to "launch" a separate universe?\n\nIf you haven't noticed, I find the ideas of possiblity incredibly fascinating. \n\nI hope I didn't make your brain explode!
1121715
Intelligent is a subjective word. If you measure it by human terms and use communication, rational thought, and abstract reasoning as a guideline, I would say no. However, if it is strictly based on environmental acumen in terms of adaptation to the variations of environment I would say yes.
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
1153116
Evolution and intelligent design can't co-exist because evolution didn't and doesn't happen. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of Creationist scientists\n(past and present).\n http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Science is actually disproving evolution.\n\n* The Big Bang \nAbout fifty years ago, American astronomers studying the galactic star clusters, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.\n\nFirst there was nothing and it blew up and then there was everything and scientists have calculated that it all happened in 1043 of a second. The echo of that explosion can still be heard bouncing around in space. Scientists claim that in the big bang all of the fundamental particles necessary for life were formed. All of the complexity we see around us is the result of this massive explosion.\n\n"The new finding hit the scientific world like a thunderclap." It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. Science itself now indicated that the universe burst into existence at a particular time in the remote past.\n\nIn 1992 measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope seemed to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."\n\nWorking backwards, the evidence implies that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. The evidence from general relativity also indicates that it was not merely a case of the matter in the universe being concentrated at a particular location, but that space itself was this tiny. At a sudden instant in time all of the energy and mass in the universe was located at this infinitesimally small point and exploded. The currently observed outbound motion of the galaxies from each other is a continuing effect of that explosion.\n\n"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.\n\nHowever, some die-hard secularists propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansions and collapses. Hence, eternity becomes nothing more than an eternal succession of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs followed by big crunches over and over again and again forever.\n\nBut this violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, that implies that the universe is in a process of gradual disintegration - running down, like a wound-up clock. And if it is running down, then there must have been a time when it was wound up. Once the big bang takes place and the universe begins its expansion, entropy starts to increase. From this point on it will never be able to go
648482
No. It's really a question that shouldn't even exist really, kinda like "What kind of shark repellant works best in Wisconson?" But sadly, millions of people think that it IS a question. Even sadder, millions more think that the answer is "yes," or at least pay lip service to the idea. Then they pass this mental illness on to their children.\n\nBy that reasoning at least, it could be considered a valid question, since apparently so many people seem to think that there IS some divine authority.\n\nI used to think that it was simply fear of death and herd instinct that kept this rather silly con-game going. For years I puzzled over just why otherwise intelligent people could swallow such unmitigated hogwash. Earlier this year, I found part of the answer in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Dr. Julian Jaynes. Hell of a title, I know, but it's written in a very friendly style that any reasonably bright layman can follow.\n\nWhile I disagree with the title, it would be more accurate to call it the "Origin of Sentience," the essence of what Dr. Jaynes had to say is very logical and answers many questions about why humans act as they do when it comes to religion and other bad ideas. What follows is a gross oversimplification of the theory, but you'll get the gist.\n\nNot to put too fine a point on it, but the urge to blindly follow some higher authority, real or imagined, is a byproduct of the process by which humans developed a spoken language and started to live together in larger groups. When given a command, a tribe member would essentially hallucinate a version of his leader giving him the command to keep him busy at complex tasks. Primitive man wasn't so hot at grasping the concept of death, so when a tribal leader would die they would venerate the corpse as the source of the ideas rattling in their head. When the corpse rotted, they replaced it with an effigy of the leader, a permanent copy of him if you will, and worshipped that as they would have the leader when he was alive. As society became more complex, this led to the development of writing to make the "god's" commands even more permanent.\n\nJaynes theorized that at this time the two hemispheres of the brain weren't connected quite like they are these days, and that the "voice of god" was really just a hallucination provided by the brain's right hemisphere. Humans of this early era were not self-aware as we understand the concept, rather they operated mechanically on the hallucinated orders of thier internalized gods. Once civilization reached the point that different cultures were forced to interact, the bicameral way of life eventually broke down.\n\nThe breakdown of the bicameral thinking did not mean the end of gods, rather, it heralded the beginning of what we call religion today. Since men no longer had an interalized god to call upon, they were forced to invent external, invisible gods to take their places.\n\nLike I said, this was a gross oversimplification of Jaynes' work. But as one can see, the urge to follow something else is practically hard wired in to the human brain. Religion was a crutch to aid man in the transition from the bicameral state to full self-awareness and self-authorization. The problem we face these days is that humans have apparently never gotten past that stage en masse. Religion remains in the collective conciousness exactly in the same way that a virus lives in a computer network.\n\nNo, there are no gods, save those man creates. Heaven isn't up there, Mount Olympus is barren. There's no Santa Claus, tooth fairy, or monster under your bed either.\n\nAn earlier poster suggested that you "Read the Bible and the Qu'ran and follow the advice of the prophets and see if you feel it in your heart that God exists and you are doing the right thing." If you do this, I also suggest that you