If creationist think intelligent design is a scientific theory, how would one go about testing the theory?

Question

If creationist think intelligent design is a scientific theory, how would one go about testing the theory?

Answer 1

That's the thing.  It's only "evidence" is evolution-bashing.  It's based on a false dichotomy - that either evolution happened as the theory states, or we were created.  In this mindset, there is no room for alternative explanation.  Since it's untestable in and of itself, it isn't a real theory.  

Answer 2

There isn't really any way to falsify the idea that god created things as they are.  If god is defined as all powerful and capable of doing anything, then anything you observe falls within god's power.  Thus, there's no way to test whether or not god created everything because there's nothing you can possibly test for that is outside god's power.

They CAN test the biblical creation account, i.e. 7 days, specific 'kinds' of animals that can't evolve beyond species, a worldwide flood, and so on.  Pretty much all of those things have been disproven, though.  All they're really left with is either a non-literal interpretation of the creation account, which is impossible to test for the reasons I said, or to completely ignore vast amounts of evidence to try and work with the literal account (which seems to be the choice of the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.)

This is why real scientists don't take god as a part of science.  Yes, there are scientists that believe in god, but they understand that it's not scientific.  No good scientist is going to work with an idea that's fundamentally untestable, nor are they going to ignore known facts to try and push with their personal beliefs.

Whens the last time you saw a so-called 'creation scientist' working on his null hypothesis, trying to find evidence that god DOESN'T exist?

Answer 3

Don't bother quibbling terminology.  ID isn't a theory, it's an observation.  In its basic form, it simply states that our observations about the structure of the universe and life are more consistent with something that was designed than with something that happened purely by chance.  I consider it an unsuitable argument against most of evolution, since it appears that evolutionary processes are part of the design, and fundamental to it.  But it is a suitable argument against abiogenesis, and should raise the standard of evidence that would be required to call any scientific theory of abiogenesis as viable.

Answer 4

In keeping with the definition of theory, it may not be "testable" and always remain a theory. Such is true of many scientific theories. Many times theory is concluded as fact based on assumptions because the assumption cannot be disproved (time and distance). In this sense, theory often becomes fact until new technology or knowledge produces indisputable, repeatable results. A better term for theoretical may be "our best guess".

Answer 5

Although ID is really just masked religion, they did a good job masking it.  Some scientists like to say ID is not falsifiable, therefore not science -- but that is not correct.

Of course ID is falsifiable -- find life on another planet.  Find the series of mutations that allow a bacteria to develop a flagellum.  ID does put forth claims that could be disproved ... they just have not been yet.

The idea of falsifiability is not what makes a good theory.  Most theories don't start this way -- they start with observations, then predicts the outcomes of some other situation that has not been observed, and then finally someone gets around to figuring out a way to test those.  The simplest theory that explains all the observations is the best -- and one that does not rely on inventing new physics, etc.  

The problem with ID is that it requires all of physics and science to be true only at the whim of a creator - and thus is the more complex theory -- thus less good.  It is more complex because each individual observation is the exception -- not the rule.  A creator helped out with flagellum, but not with development of E coli citrate eating abilities,  etc.  

ID's basic claim is that random mutations can't explain how life evolved from the first mammels, to a complex human in just 200 million years.  Hence, there must be a creator.  By the same logic, you can show that a creator is even active today, on the stovetop. Here is a simple experiment that you can do at home that supports this idea:

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.h...

Answer 6

cus the one is sutpid  

Answer 7

Some Creationists have come up with an hypothesis or two that turns out to be testable.  Most hypotheses are wrong, so they're quite a ways from having a theory in the scientific sense.

Punctuated Evolution is an example.  It states that after God created life, it was allowed to evolve - and that gives rise to the fossil record.  But then evolution was stopped, and no longer happens.  Further, the claim is that life can no longer generate novel structures and capabilities.  If God didn't design it in, well, that's tough, it can't be done.

From a science standpoint, one has to wonder what made evolution stop.  And disproving it is hard, because Evolution takes so long that your research grant expires.  But evolution of microbes doesn't take thousands of years.  In fact a paper came out recently where 31,000 generations of e. coli was able to figure out how to eat a novel, but abundant food source.  That's in just 20 years.  And the experiment was set up so that the "clock" could be wound back and restarted.  They took a sample very 500 generations and put it into a freezer.  The experiment continues.  Very, very cool.

So, the punctuated evolution people say, well, that's microbes, but it doesn't happen in higher animals, specifically mammals.  But in recorded history, we've observed speciation in several higher animals, including - and this is essentially incredible - small mammals.

ID claims that the eye couldn't have evolved or that the flagellum tails of e. coli (and others) couldn't have evolved have turned out to be wrong.  Both of these processes are well understood now.  They were difficult problems to crack, but not impossible.  ID constantly has to play catch-up.

But the main thing is the ID does not do fundamental research.  What they do is funnel money into a PR campaign.  So the poor scientist has to deal with this noise.  And it doesn't help that the PR campaign gets real scientists to talk under false pretenses, and then edits the interviews to promote their views.