Dismantling "Intelligent Design"

H. Allen Orr has an article in The New Yorker, Devolution, that calmly summarizes the key points of intelligent design and then refutes them. As Orr also points out, ID has inspired no serious experiments and made no testable predictions. Those failures alone exclude it from consideration as a genuine alternative scientific theory.

Given organisms' vulnerability to death and disease, and American school boards' willingness to impose ID on children, a theory of stupid design would offer more persuasive evidence.

Comments

[michael]

Perhaps if you would apply your standards of validity for opposing ideas to evolution to the theory of evolution itself, you might be more open to opposing views. True scientific inquiry involves openness to all views and weighing the evidence with an unbiased approach seeking to eliminate alternatives in ways other than by condescending and demeaning insults. It seems that evolutionists are so bent on defending their sacred cow at all costs without being willing to consider other alternatives that it clouds their scientific thinking. Seems like narrow-minded religious bigotry to me. It seems to me that evolutionists are upset because they cannot address the spiritual realities in life and since they cannot addresss these realiities, they dismiss them. To the question, "what is truth?", evolutionists can only try to address the physical world, but does truth extend into the spiritual world? This is a question evolutionists cannot answer or simply answer with a resounding "NO!"

[michael (also!)]

It's interesting that people who apparently know nothing about ID (like the above Michael) like to contrast ID with evolution. In fact, ID absolutely accepts very nearly every aspect of evolution (try reading the book next time, Michael!)

ID also does nothing to discuss the spiritual world, by the way.

Surely there's a library near you.

-Michael

[Crawford Kilian]

I appreciate the conviction on both sides of this debate, and it's clear where my own position is. But I don't see much value in conducting a debate here; no one's going to be persuaded, and the Internet has plenty of other spaces where people can call one another names.

So I'll leave these posts in place, but will delete any further comments that include personal attacks.

[Amit Deshwar]

I would just like to rephrase my previous comments:

Intelligent design has no real scientific basis. There is no actual evidence for intelligent design and lots of evidence against it. There is not a single biological mechanism that cannot be explained through evolutionary development. There is many biological mechanisms that cannot be explained through Intelligent Design theroy. For example: Humans eyes are wired backwards, our nerves run in front of the eye, blocking a portion of our vision. Octopi however, on a different evolutionary branch do not have this same problem. Similarily our knees are backwards, for bipedal creatures it is more correct to have our knees bend inwards.

And even if Intelligent Design theory had scientific backing (which it does not) it is a cutting edge theory that has only been around for a few years. Traditionaly scientific theories must go through extensive testing over multiple decades before they are taught below the post-secondary level. It takes time to work the kinks out of theories and ensure that initial evidence supporting a theory isn't incorrect in some way.

So in conclusion, there is no reason for Intelligent Design theory to be taught in schools.

PS: I would also like to retract my previous statements and would ask the moderator to delete my previous comment on this post.

[Keydren]

Lot of smarts in that psointg!