Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Intelligent Design: A Misunderstanding of Science...

KnifeMissile · 05-03-2006, 08:06 PM

I was reading a few threads on this forum, particularly this one, about creationism and its place in the public education system, and I was surprised by the amount of controversy around it. I know, you probably think controversy around this subject is a no brainer and that I must be daft to be surprised by it but what I mean is that many of the people who participated in that thread seemed to be honestly confused as to why intelligent design shouldn't be taught with the other scientific theories in science class and it was this that I found surprising.

In my opinion, for many people, the source of this controversy is that they don't really know what science is. I was very tempted to post a full explanation, including the motivations behind the scientific method but, for brevity's sake, I will merely state points that directly relate to intelligent design. Specifically, I intend to list criteria for scientific theory and show how intelligent design fails to satisfy them and, thus, disqualifies itself as scientific.

One criteria for scientific theory is that it can be falsified. This means that we must be able to construct an experiment that can challenge the claim. This is to help ensure that scientific theories remain real.
Intelligent design cannot be disproved. No matter what experiment we construct, one can always say that the Designer meant for the outcome to turn out that way. There is nothing that we can do to potentially disprove the theory and is, therefore, by definition, not scientific.

Another criteria for scientific theory is that it have predictive value. That means that, in some capacity, one can predict the future with it. This helps ensure that scientific theories remain, in some sense, useful.
Intelligent design makes no predictions. It only says, after the fact, that things are the way they are because He designed them that way. The theory says nothing about how the Designer chooses His designs and is, therefore, by definition, not scientific.

So, if intelligent design is not science then why would you want it taught in science class? I think it's obvious that you wouldn't...

Sadly, many of the people in those threads are no longer active participants of this forum so they won't benefit from this post but my hope is that new members who are here, and the ones who have stayed, could learn something. Thank you for reading...

05-03-2006, 08:06 PM	#1 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Intelligent Design: A Misunderstanding of Science... I was reading a few threads on this forum, particularly this one, about creationism and its place in the public education system, and I was surprised by the amount of controversy around it. I know, you probably think controversy around this subject is a no brainer and that I must be daft to be surprised by it but what I mean is that many of the people who participated in that thread seemed to be honestly confused as to why intelligent design shouldn't be taught with the other scientific theories in science class and it was this that I found surprising. In my opinion, for many people, the source of this controversy is that they don't really know what science is. I was very tempted to post a full explanation, including the motivations behind the scientific method but, for brevity's sake, I will merely state points that directly relate to intelligent design. Specifically, I intend to list criteria for scientific theory and show how intelligent design fails to satisfy them and, thus, disqualifies itself as scientific. One criteria for scientific theory is that it can be falsified. This means that we must be able to construct an experiment that can challenge the claim. This is to help ensure that scientific theories remain real. Intelligent design cannot be disproved. No matter what experiment we construct, one can always say that the Designer meant for the outcome to turn out that way. There is nothing that we can do to potentially disprove the theory and is, therefore, by definition, not scientific. Another criteria for scientific theory is that it have predictive value. That means that, in some capacity, one can predict the future with it. This helps ensure that scientific theories remain, in some sense, useful. Intelligent design makes no predictions. It only says, after the fact, that things are the way they are because He designed them that way. The theory says nothing about how the Designer chooses His designs and is, therefore, by definition, not scientific. So, if intelligent design is not science then why would you want it taught in science class? I think it's obvious that you wouldn't... Sadly, many of the people in those threads are no longer active participants of this forum so they won't benefit from this post but my hope is that new members who are here, and the ones who have stayed, could learn something. Thank you for reading...