[Is Intelligent Design science?]

Yes, it is. But it also has serious theological implications, and that is why it is a controversial theory in the scientific community today.

I think AFTR recently did a good job of distinguishing between the science of ID and the implications of the theory, which are two seperate things. Rather than paraphrasing him I will simply post his explanation here:

Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. The problem people have with ID is not Intelligent Design but the Intelligent Designer, which is not an issue in the theory of ID at all. The two are entirely separate inquiries. One merely confirms something being designed, the other seeks to identify the designer. The latter has nothing to do with the theory of ID. (You don't have to know who the engineer is to know that the car engine was designed.) ID merely confirms something having been designed, and again, design detection has long been a scientific practice.

Many other branches of the sciences already utilize design detection as a means of study and have for years:

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings (ie: arrowheads)?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

The same principles involved in studying these areas of science are used in intelligent design theory. So the question becomes, why is design detection permissable in these fields, but when applied to biology or biochemistry it is suddenly dubbed "unscientific" by some? How can the practice of design detection be "science" in these fields, but not science when applied to biological systems? I think the answer is obvious to all. It is because some individuals do not like the implications of the research when it comes to applying design detection to biology. They don't want to have to wrestle with the possibility that perhaps we are not here by chance and random processes, but rather, were designed by an intelligent being. Or, to quote prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

-'Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31

 

"The Teleological Argument:

 

1)The odds of the universe being able to support life of any kind are astronomical.  Life/the universe is far too complex to have come about by chance. 

 

2)An intelligent being must have created life/the universe. 

 

3)That intelligent being is God. 

 

 

4)Therefore God exists. "

 

This reminds me of the people who are skeptic of an extremely lucky man at a gambling casino:

 

"The chances of him getting a royal flush 3 times in a row are astronomical. Therefor, he must have cheated".

 

"Is Intelligent Design science?"

 

Until someone can demonstrate how Intelligent Design can be taught under the scientific method, it's a resounding no.

Turning_Tables:

[Until someone can demonstrate how Intelligent Design can be taught under the scientific method, it's a resounding no.]

No Problem. Just check out this link:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

By this evidence that ID puts forth, which contains no answers only conjecture, snow flakes are also designed. Principles of design need to be more than lack of knowing any thing better to attribute causes to.

Stop comparing ID to science or other explanations of origins, and find some solid evidence of a designer, because ‘ a designer’ is the only way to save this theory.

That's not my only problem with The Case For Faith. All my objections would fill a book. Your argument doesn't work because we don't know what a different universe would be like. If it were different, then maybe something like life, but different, would form. We just can't know. ID is not science. For almost every scientific theory I can think of, there's a couple steps.
1. A discovery challenges the existing theories or prompt new ones.
2. A new theory is added.
3. Evidence is collected to either proof or falsify the theory.

ID went like this.
1. There's an idea that some people wanted to be true.
2. They tried to find evidence to support it and shoehorned existing evidnece.

Also there is no debate within the scientific comuntiy. If you want me to show you why, I'll show you one of my posts on it.

Tony

Arguments about evolution shouldn't be focused on Gods existance. It is much funner to attack evolution on the scientific level...

I submit that intelligent design is science by any reasonable definition, and that the teleological argument is valid.

To use Tony's outline of scientific steps:

1) Common sense was rediscovered.  Furthermore, evidence continued to mount against a purely naturalistic model of evolution.  In addition, previously established principles were applied to, e.g., biology.
2) Intelligent design was proposed.
3) Continued discoveries reveal life to be more complex than previously thought, supporting intelligent design.

As to the teleological argument (which intelligent design appears to support, thus the reluctance to admit it as science), it strikes me as quite strong.  Contrary to the claims of some, we can envision an alteration to certain constants, and we can draw conclusions from the outcomes that would follow.  The first point in the argument is therefore supported.  The particular features of this universe are far too improbable, and dare I say, virtually impossible.  The second point requires only the recognition that intelligent design (as applied to the universe as a whole) is one of the two options here.  The first point has effectively demolished the other option, and therefore intelligent design wins by default.  The third point is a logical step, as the designer of these specific features could not have been material (the features in question preceding the formation of even the most basic units of matter).  One is far from illogical for adopting the third point in light of the other two.  The fourth step is a rather inevitable conclusion.

That's my perspective on the issue, at least.

God bless,

JB