Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

First i will say yes i am a christian

This thread is not meant to be about evolution vs. religion or why you think religion is incorrect

I would like to ask why many people try to say intelligent design is not scientific

All over the internet people try to brush off anyone who believes in ID as unintelligent and try to claim that they know nothing about science and have done no research in to it at all. I BEG TO DIFFER

I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID.

I can not find whatever it is that supposedly is out there.

Evolution from one species to another has too many flaws and many many reputable scientists dont agree with it.

science also can not explain how life began in the first place. none of the theories explain the existence of matter or energy or how the first cell formed and when they try they can not repeat the process.

from all i have studied including physics, astronomy, biology, etc. i believe most of these just show how ID is not probable but NEEDED.

There is nothing in science that shows how our complex life came to be without including ID, i would therefore like to ask how so many make that claim

Yep, i agree with you why they think creation, is not scientific, is rubbish. Evolution from one species to another has not been proven, like what turned into modern man.

Alot of guess work goes into it, and they seem to choose just fads, to go along with like global warming.

right you are

the world as well as science now is just a big show

everyone tries to do what is expected and does not want to go against the main stream

and yes global warming is hilarious, what has it been now? 11 years of cooling?

"I would like to ask why many people try to say intelligent design is not scientific"
what science is being done to prove this theory? it seems to me it is mostly about (failing to) disproe evolution


"Evolution from one species to another has too many flaws and many many reputable scientists dont agree with it."

many many many MANY more do agree with evolution



"science also can not explain how life began in the first place. none of the theories explain the existence of matter or energy or how the first cell formed and when they try they can not repeat the process."

evolution doesnt try to do any of those things. intelligent design just says god did all of that

"from all i have studied including physics, astronomy, biology, etc. i believe most of these just show how ID is not probable but NEEDED. "

how so?

There is nothing in science that shows how our complex life came to be without including ID, i would therefore like to ask how so many make that claim "


complexity is subjective and again evolution doesnt try to explain how life came to be.

ID is religious based. it is just a (poorly) concealed attempt at teaching religion in schools.
dont believe me?

"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator. "

Phillip Johnson, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator", LA Times, 25 Mar. 2001

in michigan they tried to get a bill passed to teach "intelligent design of a Creator" in middle and high school science class rooms. (Michigan House Bill 4946).

I think it is a matter of scope. Neither side is going to be right.. If they were able to 100% say with no doubt what caused life and the growth of life here, they would have much grander science available to them than we know about..

I think it's like the act of turning on a computer. An ID proponant would say, that the computer booted up to the desktp because a human plugged it in and turned it on. An evolutionist would say it was because the temporary closing of the power switch triggered a power surge in a CMOS chip that caused the BIOS to boot, which in turn loaded the primary operating system off the hard drive and launched it's main process, when then in turn loaded up a desktop and all the other programs.

Just a matter of scope.

well, everything is scientific when broken down. but if the world is created through you and because of you it exists, is it really science? or is it intelligence disguised as an art?

My own personal opinion is that religion is man's attempt to explain the unexplainable by means of a deity's direct involvement (for example, God created the world by means of saying "Let there be...", and did it instantaneously over the course of 6 days). Science, on the other hand, is man's attempt to explain the unexplainable without any intervention by any kind of deity.

I think that it may well be something inbetween the 2. I do believe in the necessity of a higher power, I also believe that the order of the universe and the self replication between big and small denotes a great deal of order, in a fractal sense, and that we are each of us part of a greater pattern, but our perspective prevents us from seeing it in it's entirety.

I believe life is progressive. That was always the plan, that life should start out simple and become more complicated. I also believe we may be at the end of this stage in our development, and the coming years will see us beginning to become far more complex than we are, with far more knowledge of the reality of how the universe works, and the inherent beauty of it.

Originally posted by resonance
I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID.

The scientific method does not equate to the United States judicial system's way of coming to a conclusion -- that being, it is not "true until proven false", it is "assumed false until proven true", in the scientific world.

Simply put, until valid evidence is brought forth to support ANY of any of the world's major religions, then it will remain scientifically dubious at best, and more precisely, scientifically laughable. "Faith" does not equate to "proof", or for the scientists out there, "empirical evidence".

To be more clear however, the LACK of science being able to prove that intelligent design is false does not equate to proof that intelligent design is true.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Ghostt]

ID simply puts forth the idea that there is some ID involved in the way things are without namming a designer.
We all know what the theory of evolution is so i will not go into it, but Evolution and ID do not disprove eachother any more than they proove themselves.
ID needs proof of a creator or creators to be proven and Evolution needs proof of missing links to be prooven. One side saying the other is unscientific is just trolling the other side. If science was based on how many suporters it has then evolution would have never come as far as it has.
But scientists can have valid theories having only secondary evidence when they want to. Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang theory but there is no evidence of dark matter at all. The only evidence there is of dark matter is hypothesized by secondary evidence, just like god no proof just secondary evidence.

"science also can not explain how life began in the first place. none of the theories explain the existence of matter or energy or how the first cell formed and when they try they can not repeat the process."

evolution doesnt try to do any of those things. intelligent design just says god did all of that

I never said evolution tries to explain how things came to be. i said science can not explain the beginning. and yes intelligent design does say god did it. it makes perfect sense too when you consider the degree of chance involved in every aspect of our lives

"Evolution from one species to another has too many flaws and many many reputable scientists dont agree with it."

"many many many MANY more do agree with evolution "

i will agree with that, but more scientists than not agreed that everything revolved around the earth as well. also there is a big problem with proponents of ID losing credibility and their jobs just because of they entertain the idea, so i could argue that some may think ID to be plausible but do not voice their opinion

"from all i have studied including physics, astronomy, biology, etc. i believe most of these just show how ID is not probable but NEEDED. "

"how so? "


the complexity of life, cells, the laws that govern our world, etc. are all outstanding, no scientific theory can explain how these things came to be. evolution tries but just does not cut it

ID is religious based. it is just a (poorly) concealed attempt at teaching religion in schools.

ID does not have to be religious based. Just because i say life has to have been created intelligently does not have anything to do with religion. Who says it was a God anyone worships, who says it wasnt hyper-dimensional beings or something else. I did not include any religion in my post other than stating i was christian.

"ID needs proof of a creator or creators to be proven and Evolution needs proof of missing links to be prooven."

false. why is there a need for all of the missing links? the gaps (where there are gaps) generally arent that big. francis collins (a scientist who is a christian) lead the human genome project. he said DNA alone would be all the support that evolution needed.

" One side saying the other is unscientific is just trolling the other side. If science was based on how many suporters it has then evolution would have never come as far as it has."

false. one side is unscientific if there is no real science going on. the second part is true, but we (or at least I wasnt) werent saying that many more do as an appeal to larger numbers, it is people generally better educated and more in touch with the knowledge who support it.

"But scientists can have valid theories having only secondary evidence when they want to. Dark matter is crucial to the Big Bang theory but there is no evidence of dark matter at all. The only evidence there is of dark matter is hypothesized by secondary evidence, just like god no proof just secondary evidence."

dark matter is detectable through its effects though. SOMETHING is causing extra gravity, dark matter is just the name they give it.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

dark matter is detectable through its effects though. SOMETHING is causing extra gravity, dark matter is just the name they give it.

And if they called it the creator then it would be unscientific right?

reply to post by resonance


First, a clarification: ID is barely a hypothesis at best, it doesn't have enough evidence behind it to qualify as a theory.

As used in science, "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation. It is much more full-blown.

A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another.

via www.nebscience.org...


ID is more or less a load of crap for the following reasons:


1 - To say Gawd did it, first prove Gawd exists.. you can't. ID Hypothesis fails to even start.

2 - show through repeatable and documented experimentation that can be done by a third party. We can see evolution & adaptation, demonstrate it and document it. ID people simply can't and many times, won't. ID Hypothesis falls apart due to lack of evidence.

3 - The only source of the ID hypothesis is one book, and the babble, er bible isn't well known for being all that correct in things, even when it agrees with itself. ID Hypothesis lacks any reasoning and logical connections.

4 - ID Hypothesis utterly fails to explain the diversity and types of organisms present without an explanation that comes from either one book, or papal cannon. Why would Gawd create Ebola, Aids, Cancer, The Black Plague, cannibals, gingers, downs syndrome, etc etc etc. ID Hypothesis contradicts itself if tied to its creator.

There also is no 'what if' and 'lets assume' to skirt any part of this. Also, a theory shows, unless specifically defined, all instances of its subject.

mod edit: removed the code that was messing with the page layout

[edit on 3 Nov 09 by Gools]

"I never said evolution tries to explain how things came to be. i said science can not explain the beginning. and yes intelligent design does say god did it. it makes perfect sense too when you consider the degree of chance involved in every aspect of our lives"

and this

"the complexity of life, cells, the laws that govern our world, etc. are all outstanding, no scientific theory can explain how these things came to be. evolution tries but just does not cut it"

directly contradict each other. and science doesnt even try to explain the beginning.

ID does not have to be religious based. Just because i say life has to have been created intelligently does not have anything to do with religion. Who says it was a God anyone worships, who says it wasnt hyper-dimensional beings or something else. I did not include any religion in my post other than stating i was christian.


and just because it isnt necessarily a religion that anyone practices, that doesnt mean it isnt religious in nature. saying "god did it" invokes a god.

hyperdimensional beings/aliens may as well be god(s) if they can create the universe.

yet again, complexity is subjective and not proof of a designer. not understanding where the laws come from isnt proof for a designer.

Saying god did it gives us an answer, but a bad one. it creates more questions than it answers.

1 - To say Gawd did it, first prove Gawd exists.. you can't. ID Hypothesis fails to even start.

The same can be said for evolution. Proove it...you can't.

3 - The only source of the ID hypothesis is one book, and the babble, er bible isn't well known for being all that correct in things, even when it agrees with itself. ID Hypothesis lacks any reasoning and logical connections.

False. ID never mentions the bible or "god" it say that there is ID involved in the creation of life. That would be like saying that evolution comes from atheism and without atheism there would be no theory of evolution.

4 - ID Hypothesis utterly fails to explain the diversity and types of organisms present without an explanation that comes from either one book, or papal cannon. Why would Gawd create Ebola, Aids, Cancer, The Black Plague, cannibals, gingers, downs syndrome, etc etc etc. ID Hypothesis contradicts itself if tied to its creator.

The same could be said for evolution, what did AIDS evolve from? What is the evolutional advantage od downs syndrome?

"The same can be said for evolution. Proove it...you can't."

but theres REALLY good evidence for it. and a reason to believe it happens in the first place.


"False. ID never mentions the bible or "god" it say that there is ID involved in the creation of life. That would be like saying that evolution comes from atheism and without atheism there would be no theory of evolution."

agreed in some part. some IDers have and do talk about the bible. im not saying they are directly together, but in america at least, the ID movement has a lot of christians pushing it.


"The same could be said for evolution, what did AIDS evolve from? What is the evolutional advantage od downs syndrome?"

i think it is believed that it originated in monkeys. and no one said everything that happens biologically is an advantage. Downs is a chromosomal error.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Originally posted by resonance
I never said evolution tries to explain how things came to be. i said science can not explain the beginning. and yes intelligent design does say god did it. it makes perfect sense too when you consider the degree of chance involved in every aspect of our lives

The Flying Spaghetti Monster makes even more sense, since his noodly appendages are infinite and therefore can multitask better.

Originally posted by resonance
i will agree with that, but more scientists than not agreed that everything revolved around the earth as well. also there is a big problem with proponents of ID losing credibility and their jobs just because of they entertain the idea, so i could argue that some may think ID to be plausible but do not voice their opinion

back in the day, most all scientists came from the church because they more or less held the monopoly on education. The thought that the universe revolves around the earth was also a philosophical and dogma based idea enforced by the local parish. Notice that once numbers and proof and repeatable documented experiments and observations to the contrary because apparent, the concept took over like wildfire, despite the intervention of the church and the various other misguided scientists.

Originally posted by resonance
the complexity of life, cells, the laws that govern our world, etc. are all outstanding, no scientific theory can explain how these things came to be. evolution tries but just does not cut it

actually, many scientific theories show how they came to be, and went form cells to tissues to organs to organism, etc. competition, adaptin an dsuch explain quite a bit given the time scale.

Originally posted by resonance
ID does not have to be religious based. Just because i say life has to have been created intelligently does not have anything to do with religion. Who says it was a God anyone worships, who says it wasnt hyper-dimensional beings or something else. I did not include any religion in my post other than stating i was christian.

religious based, faith based, it all requires faith in an unprovable external being and the ignoring of many other basic facts about life, like.. fossils, mutant bacteria, many arachnid and lower level species breeding habits and most importantly, the platypus.

I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID.

It depends on what you mean by "intelligent design." If you just mean that you think God designed the biosphere, then swell. It can't be proved, it can't be disproved, it is simply not sceintific subject matter.

There's nothing wrong with not being sceintific subject matter. Neither is number theory. But there's no reason to teach ID in a biology class, just as there's no reason to teach Fermat's last theorem in biology class.

If, however, you mean that the biosphere cannot be explained without reference to an intelligent designer, well, that at least is potentially scientific subject matter. Realize the potential, and we'll talk.

There was a comic attempt a while ago to do that, based on something called "irreducible complexity" (searchable). It failed when its signature example's complexity was, well, reduced.

So, until somebody comes up with something better, the "cannot" is a four star lady dog to prove, especially without a definition of intelligence. Extra-especially when everybody who says "designer" really means God, but says "designer" instead. That's dishonest, and so not a great start for a scientific project. Could have sworn there was a commandment against it, too.

As to the rest, evolution by natural selection has little to do with the beginnings of life and nothing to do with the beginnings of the Universe. Any theory T whatsoever of either subject can be amended to read God willed it that T be true, and you have the same theory, so far as any scientific test could tell.

Laplace is usually credited as being the first one to state that thought outright ("I have no need of that hypothesis," that is, some role for God in material affairs). That was about 200 years ago. There have never been two better centuries for progress in knowledge. I think those two facts may be related.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by eight bits]

reply to post by resonance

First i will say yes i am a christian

I am truly honestly sorry to hear that.

This thread is not meant to be about evolution vs. religion or why you think religion is incorrect

Really? Then what is it's true purpose considering the nature of the question seems to be slightly contradictory to that statement.

I would like to ask why many people try to say intelligent design is not scientific

Because it's not? Seems simple enough to understand, to me at least.

All over the internet people try to brush off anyone who believes in ID as unintelligent and try to claim that they know nothing about science and have done no research in to it at all. I BEG TO DIFFER

Well, there is your problem. IDist's demand a designer by asking "Well where did this come from? HAHA PWNED YOU!"; And when we finally figure out the evolution of some so called irreducibly complex system, they turn around and pick a new one for scientist to work on.

I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID.

A blind seeker, I like that. Can I ask you a question? What tangible explicit evidence do you have for your God? What evidence do you have against someone else' God?

I can not find whatever it is that supposedly is out there.

What do you mean?

Evolution from one species to another has too many flaws and many many reputable scientists dont agree with it.

Evolution is a fact as it's an observed trait found in nature. Evolution as a theory is a process in which scientists have many different views on how that process occurs; this disagreement on the process itself is not a disagreement on the observation occurring. What your doing is nothing short of trying to argue against gravity because not all scientist agree on how gravity works. Hopefully you can understand something as simple as that?

science also can not explain how life began in the first place. none of the theories explain the existence of matter or energy or how the first cell formed and when they try they can not repeat the process.

Without knowledge of the initial conditions of our planet prior to the beginnings of self-replicating molecules is a big hindrance in discovering how life began. Attempting to discover those initial conditions and replicate them does not detract from the observations seen in nature. I refer to my gravity example above for explanation.

from all i have studied including physics, astronomy, biology, etc. i believe most of these just show how ID is not probable but NEEDED.

I disagree, as these fields of science only work *without* the aide of some supernatural entity. They don't factor in any outside help.

There is nothing in science that shows how our complex life came to be without including ID, i would therefore like to ask how so many make that claim

Your form of ID calls for your Christian God. Why can't it be aliens from Tau Ceti instead? Why does it have to be your personal deity? What evidence do you have against aliens from Tau Ceti and evidences for you God? Are you able to reproduce those results yourself?

reply to post by sirnex



you say evolution is a fact.

some forms of evolution do happen

but macro evolution where one species totally changes in to another is not a fact. if you say it is that is simply untrue

i dont feel like going through quoting everything, but someone said why would god create aids and disease

well if you follow the bible, god didnt intend for pain,suffering, etc, it was all due to our fall

someone also said i was contradicting saying that this shouldnt be evolution vs. religion

i did not contradict myself at all, plenty of science shows how incredibly unlikely and complex our life here is, and to believe based on faith that it happened by chance, because that is what atheists believe, is more outrageous a claim than a creator.

and people claim christians have no proof for their god

if you study, we have plenty

most of the old testament has been proven to be real events

jesus has also been proven to be a real person

the prophecies predicting jesus' coming were fulfilled literally, it would therefore be reasonable to presume that the rest of it is literal

any contradictions people supposedly find are always just certain verses taken out of context. the bible never contradicts itself

the predictions the bible makes, that came true, and will come true, have to have been from outside our time domain, that is pretty good proof of my god

and other gods have way too many flaws, i may consider making another thread about other religions and their problems

but too many atheists like to claim evolution as fact..it is not..and without evolution, what is your other theory on life, the universe, our consciousness