What is Wrong with Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design has many valid points, and so does evolution. Why can't both go hand in hand?
- gribblingLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Proponents of Intelligent Design can sometimes ask questions about evolution which make Evolutionary Biologists think about their subject a little differently, or a little deeper: for example, their idea of Irreducible Complexity did indeed lead to biologists thinking about how features like the vertebrate eye, or the bacterial flagellum did evolve. Of course, so far evolution does in fact have an answer to all of the objections raised (especially since it is perfectly OK in science to say "We don't know yet.")
The main problem with Intelligent Design is that it is NOT science.
For a hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it must meet the following three important criteria:
The hypothesis must, in principle, be able to be disproved by experiment.
The hypothesis must make predictions which can be tested.
Also known as "Occam's Razor", the hypothesis must be the simplest explanation which fits all existing data. This means that it must introduce the fewest variables; only if the number of variables cannot fit all the data should more complexity be introduced.
ID fails on all three counts:
 It is not falsifiable, because it invokes a supernatural Designer. Since the supernatural is not open to investigation through science, we cannot verify or refute the existance of such a Designer.
 It is not predictive, because we know nothing about the nature or motivation of the Designer, so we cannot make any predictions about what to expect from such a Designer.
 It is not parsimonious, because the Designer must neccessarily be AT LEAST as complicated as the object that has been designed. This therefore at least doubles the complexity of the model.
There are other valid scientific objections to ID as a model. The wikipedia entry describes them decently:
Of course, there are many non-scientific subjects which are worthy of study - and you might consider ID one of them.
But it should not be confused with science, and it should not be taught in a science curriculum.
- 1 decade ago
eri, gribbling, and secretsauce all have great answers, but I would like to point out one more thing: The Wedge Strategy.
The Wedge Strategy does a few insidious things:
1) It proposes an alternative to a scientific theory without any scientific evidence backing it. This is intellectually dishonest.
2) It attacks evolution not in the science arenas, where such theories should be debated and argued over, but in the arenas of public opinion and politics. This is a completely dishonest end-run around the normal course of action through which scientific theories get scrutinized, and is completely dishonest.
3) It shows ID for what it really is, a social and politcal movement, and not a true scientific theory. As such, it belongs no where near a science course. And, as a result of defeat after defeat in the court systems, as a movement, its mode of attack is being redefined, from "teaching the controversy" tactics to "teaching the 'whole' truth" about evolution, including its (evolution's) many (apparent) flaws. Again, another dishonest attempt at discrediting a scientific theory based on personal philosophical objections.
But in the end, it all boils down to evidence, and IDer's can't produce any that holds up to scientific peer review. Until the day it does, it can raise all the points it wants to, but doesn't belong along side a perfectly legitimate and sound scientific theory.Source(s): your friendly neighborhood skeptic
- secretsauceLv 71 decade ago
Having "valid points" is not enough in science. There needs to be *EVIDENCE*.
I would agree with you that Intelligent Design makes some very valid points ... but these are in the form of *questions* about evolution. Questions about the origins of complexity, of organization, of accumulation of information, etc.
But a set of questions ... no matter how valid ... is not a theory. You need to provide some alternative answers ... better answers than the reigning theory (evolution) provides. And Intelligent Design just doesn't provide any answers. To say that a "designer designed it" is not an answer. It is as meaningless an answer as saying that we should replace the theory of gravity with the concept that there is a divine "mover" that "moves" things. To point to something like the eye, or the immune system, or blood clotting, or the bacterial flagellum and say "this is too complex for evolution, therefore some designer designed it" is just replacing the question with a far more complex one ... it replaces the thing to be explained (the eye, flagellum, etc.) with something far more unexplainable (the Designer ... an entity with no explainable mechanism, origins, energy source, or *motive*).
Evolution, on the other hand, has *EVIDENCE*. Everything from fossils, to DNA evidence, evidence from proteins, embryological development, biogeography, vestigial structures, homologous structures, atavisms, the way that bacteria and viruses develop immunity to toxins such as antibiotics or antivirals or new enzymes for digesting new proteins, to the way that insects gain resistence to pesticides, and on and on. 150 years of evidence.
So there is nothing inherently wrong with Intelligent Design. But if it is going to be taken seriously as a science, then the proponents of ID need to convince *SCIENTISTS*. You do this by research. By publishing papers. By going to conferences and arguing with real scientists.
You DON'T do this by trying to get Intelligent Design into 10th-grade Biology classrooms! Since the supporters of ID can't convince even 1% of the world's scientific community of the validity of Intelligent Design, they don't then get to appeal their case to 10th Graders!
THAT is what scientists object to. Not Intelligent Design itself. But the cynical claim that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools! If it's not good enough for the scientific community, then it is *CERTAINLY* not ready to be taught to kids who barely know the difference between a beak and a beaker so that they can "make up their own minds." Science is not like a Proposition E on a ballot. Science is not a democracy ... the one who has the evidence to convince the *scientific community* wins.
- eriLv 71 decade ago
Intelligent design has no evidence. It's 'evidence' is "I can't think of how that could have happened, therefore it didn't." It's called an 'argument from ignorance', and it's a logical fallacy. Evolution, on the other hand, has tons of evidence.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Evolution is all of these things - there have been many instances of it in the lab, all of which are repeatable experiments, and plenty of ways it could be proved wrong - a cat giving birth to a dog would prove a good portion of evolution wrong, but it hasn't happened. Intelligent design can not be tested, repeated, or falsified - if there's no way to prove your theory wrong, there's no way to confirm you're correct.
Evolution is science. Intelligent design is creationism in a bad suit.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Bob D1Lv 71 decade ago
The problem with intelligent design, ID, among many other problems, is that supporters suggest "a" designer. There is nothing in ID which says that there has to be just one designer. There could have been many, many designers involved over long periods of time. Each designer designing some different aspect of creation. Now, ID'ers don't like that approach as they are pushing a god created religious based idea, in order to get creation taugh in science classes. Religion is what ID is all about.
Beyond that, ID makes no predictions about nature that can be evaluated in the laboratory. ID isn't science, it, like the bible, is a religious story.Source(s): self
- Frank NLv 71 decade ago
Intelligent Design is 'wrong' only when you try to make it more than it is. It's simply an observation about the nature of the universe. It says only that an unbiased observation of how the universe works looks more like something that was designed than something that happened purely by random processes. They do go hand in hand.
Science has reliably established that life has progressed according to evolutionary processes. Few thinking people disagree with that. You don't really get into a conflict until you try to go so far back in time that science doesn't know what happened, and can make only plausible conjectures like abiogenesis. The most difficult conjectures try to explain how the mechanism of DNA could have derived from purely random, undirected processes. Currently, neither science nor faith can say how DNA (life) came into being. Religious teachings can only say that God was responsible for it. They still don't say how. I can say with confidence that this will not be definitely resolved in the lifetime of anyone alive today.
- hoskingLv 44 years ago
What could you like a 50 web site dissertation right here? No links, no pastes, yet another words no answer so some distance as your in touch. there is a lot of evidence for creation and a lot that evolution can't clarify. start up with the very powerful of evolution, sluggish substitute using mutation and adaption. biology has shown that Mutation is almost continually degenerate and destroys or reduces the cellular, yet you think this money owed for evolution? So advantageous mutation in basic terms works for evolution, yet is damaging for each little thing else. it is sturdy. you will no longer be able to discover the fossil checklist, so which you at the instant arise with a clean concept of punctuated equilibrium. surprising leaps interior the evolutionary technique. nicely if it leaps we could desire to continually be waiting to work out a type of leaps. no longer. Entropy is a medical actuality. Biologists, physics, chemists all believe the theory of Entropy ( lowering complexity) is a time-honored actuality. yet for evolution to artwork or be actual you're able to could desire to have a upward push in complexity. completely against technology for the two to be actual. you are able to't have increasing complexity, evolution, in a international ruled by using entropy. Which technology do you think? BTW- maximum paleontologists now say that if Neanderthal guy replaced into on the earth on the instant he could be a splash shorter and stockier than time-honored, yet they doubt you're able to observe them in a crowd. Get off the 70's technology
- 1 decade ago
There is nothing wrong with intelligent design, or evolution, and they can go hand in hand.
Three thumbs down <sigh>.
OK, I hate to be a broken record, but I'll give a more in depth explanation.
We have the ability to create, and destroy universe's, we've been doing it for decades, and they have become more and more complex as we have become more and more technologically advanced. One of the ealiest virtual universes was Pong, we then moved on to Pac-man, then Mario and onwards, until we've presently come up with the Sims, Grand Theft Auto, and Second Life. These current universe's are very good representations of the one that we live in, and very soon, we'll be able to create universe's that are identical to our own.
If we can create a universe, then there is no reason to believe that we aren't in a created universe.
It's possible that our universe was created billions of years ago, and that it evolved into what it is today. Hence ID, and evolution CAN go hand in hand. There is nothing wrong with intelligent design, OR evolution, and both are equally possible.
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.Source(s): Agnostic
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Intelligent Design is a remedy to the flaws of evolution, it is not a freestanding theory. It could be, but for now, it is not. What it does is remove the randomness of Evolution which can only lead to nothing, and replace it with intelligence. Evolution itself is fatally flawed because of its foundations, its basic tenets. Some evolutions that are claimed to have occured are completely impossible.
I will bring up an example. The assumption that the bird-like dinosaurs evolved into the birds we see today. An understanding of the avian lung, and that it has two holes shows the flaws. If the dinosaur lung had to slowly turn into the avian lung, at one point, a mutation would have had to occur which created a hole in the lung (another one). Of what possible selective advantage could this be?
There are many of these examples, and they show that evolution led by mutations is implausible at best.