yep...not do do a tfp pile on, but seriously - that's the problem. you can't put forth a hypothesis which inherently
isn't testable. at the most you could hope for an inductive proof, but that proof would simply say what science always says: there is more going on that we know of. there will always be more going on than we know. its the leap from 'there is more going on than we currently know' to 'therefore, an intelligent designer must have created the universe.'
as is pointed out, that requires going back and proving the existence of an intelligent designer. that is squarely beyond the purview of scientific study, until someone manages to find 'heaven' on a little scopey thingy and quantify it. it is, by definition, beyond measurement, beyond quantification, and that's putting it nicely.
personally, i'm not a reductionist / only physical phenomena have merit kind of guy. but in a question of
science, i am. because that's what science is. if you want to do philosophy, i think that's great. do it in a comparative philosophy class and then ask these types of questions.
evolution doesn't disprove religion or even the intelligent design concept, because it can't. ask a deist. all it does is lay out a probable scenario wherein more complicated structure may arise, in this case biological structures. asking science to disprove strictly theological constructs is like asking a deaf person to evaluate an opera, blindfolded and without any neato mosquito aids. just can't happen. therefore, to foist the intelligent design hypothesis on a science classroom is simply to muddy the water, achieve stalemate, retard scientific education, and thus attempt to hold together a world view which partially comes under attack when, as
roach hath stated, you strictly interpret ancient scientific theory inside ancient holy texts as literal scientific work.
thus,
will's lesson plan. i mean, afterall, who else could this masked intelligent designer be?
