There’s no way to evaluate the merits of intelligent design as a scientific theory, because it does not make any testable predictions (which is part of the definition of a scientific theory). That means that not only does it currently have no evidence, it can’t ever have any evidence even in principle because there’s no way to test for it. There are no arguments that favor intelligent design, there are only arguments AGAINST evolution, and a suggestion that we arbitrarily relegate anything about biology we DON’T understand to an intelligent designer. It is a ‘theory’ based on nothing, whereas evolution is a theory based on 150 years worth of investigation and libraries full of evidence.
Rev Albert Einstein:
Quoting a couple people who said things that SOUND like they MIGHT contain SOME doubt about evolution does not erase 150 years of painstaking experiments, calculations, publications, field work, observation, modeling, sample-collecting, data gathering, thinking, writing, re-writing, debate, and analysis. Sorry, but you’ve got some catch-up work to do. And by the way, Hawking’s quote is not anti-evolution at all. He is merely pointing out something that scientists have been trying to get through to people like you for a long time now, and that is that science does not imply anything one way or the other about the existence of God.
I’m glad you see the amazing beauty in nature, as do I, but beauty doesn’t imply anything about design.
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what science is. Evolution does NOT rely on an assumption that experiments can eliminate the supernatural. Evolution, and the rest of science, merely admits that the supernatural (in the way you’re using the word) is not something we can test. Science does not deny its existence altogether, as you claim, it simply admits that since science is all about testable ideas, there’s no way we can learn about the supernatural through science. No credible scientist has ever made the claim that intelligent design can be ruled out. We just object to an idea that is non-science being called science.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT say that “everything tends toward disorder,” nor does it say anything that even remotely resembles this. Order arises from disorder all the time. It happens every time it snows, and little snowflakes with complex patterns arrange themselves from water molecules randomly floating through the sky. Or every time a gemstone, like the one in your favorite necklace, crystallizes. Or every time a seed grows into a flower. If “everything tends towards disorder,” how is it that nature creates order from disorder EVERY SINGLE DAY? You’ve probably watched it happen yourself! You also state, “If I cannot believe that a chalk drawing was made by chance, then there is no way that I can possibly believe that the human body or any other animal was created by chance.” Unfortunately for your argument, scientists do not claim that animals arose by chance… I’m not sure where you got that idea from. They claim that animals arose from processes that are governed and guided by physical laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, that are the very OPPOSITE of chance. You can’t dismiss a scientific theory by restating it incorrectly, and then saying that you can’t imagine how it could have happened that way.
Angela D: ROCK ON. I believe in God, too. At least there’s one other person in this world who understands that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, and also that belief in a higher power does not justify labeling non-science as science.
Questioner: None of the statistical methods you speak of can truly distinguish intelligent design from the natural occurrence of complex patterns. Those arguments are built on a house of cards... the ID proponents’ “methods” would also probably conclude that crystals with complex chemical zonations are intelligently designed, when in fact, you can watch them growing in nature with no intelligent guide at all. ID has, to date, not provided a single testable prediction, which is the hallmark of a scientific idea. All it does is argue that any patterns in nature we don’t understand yet should be designated to a designer about which we can know nothing.
HiEv- Well said!!!!!