Is intelligent design science?

Sure. I'd rather forget Christianity ever came to be if I had it my way.

 

Science:
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Neither intelligent design or evolution are science. They are ideas/theories. Is it fair to say that a better question is "is it possible to study/research/etc. starting from an intelligent design background?"

Straying from the conversation, but whatever.

 

If you'd like to remain ignorant about an important part of the world's culture, that's fine, but don't try to spread your ignorance to students who are studying it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Evolution fulfills the requirements of a scientific theory and can therefore be considered scientific. Intelligent design does not meet the criterion and is thus pseudoscientific.

 

There are already religion classes taught in most schools/universities. Religion and Intelligent Design are not science, there is no hard evidence to support them. Science classrooms should be a place for reason and logic, not fantasy and the supernatural.

To teach "at least one form" would be even worse. Think of the implications of that. You're essentially saying we should go by popular opinion and teach Christianity (for example) alongside evolution. Not only is this discriminate towards anyone of another religion (which is like 40% of the world) but it's teaching two different ideals side by side. What is the student supposed to believe? You can't sit down and teach one idea and then immediately after teach another idea that completely contradicts what the previous one. That is not how people learn and certainly not practical in a classroom environment.

I realize you wanted to include other religions too, but at least judging from your post it seemed like you wanted it taught side by side with evolution, which is just completely illogical seeing as I've said before science has no room for fantasy or the supernatural.

 

I fail to see its importance. Care to enlighten me?

 

Me either. I don't care to learn about something that has caused practically every major war in history, claimed countless lives, and forced scientific discovery to a standstill for nearly 2,000 years. Just think of where we'd be today if we had no religious obligations. Many scientists over the years have been either put to death, excommunicated, had their work snuffed out, or otherwise shunned for thinking differently than religion. I fail to see WHY I should devote my time and intellect to something as parasitic and destructive as religion.

 

So evolution is scientific, and intelligent design is not.

But evolution is by no means proved conclusively, nor is intelligent design disproved. If it were a system of beliefs with no evidence to back it up, then it would be unscientific. As it is, the expansion of the universe suggests that it is only thousands, not millions of years old, the fossils of intermediate species that should be everywhere are entirely lacking (if one is found, it is reported as monumental, and they often turn out to be fakes), nor are there any live examples, there has be no recorded instance of macro-evolution in process; all the species we see today are distinct, humans are remarkably distinct from any other animal, not in their appearance, but in their abilities and intellect, and science still can't, to my knowledge, explain what caused the big bang (where did the matter come from, why did it blow up after sitting for an indefinite amount of time?) just to name a few.

 

You seem to have overlooked that Jimmy has already answered this. Evolution meets all of the criteria to be a scientific theory. Fact right there. Intelligent design means none of the criteria. Therefore, it is not scientific. It's that simple. Also, how the hell did you come to the conclusion the universe is only thousands of years old? We have fossils that are MUCH older than that.. so unless your God put evidence here to tempt us, your idea make absolutely no sense.

You're trying to compare a theory to a law, which does not work. Of course evolution is still a work in progress, and it doesn't have all of the answers.. yet. It's a much more accurate explanation of things though, and does not leave any room for ambiguity or for things to just zap into existence as Intelligent Design does.

 

For exactly this reason. Students should be taught about anything that has had such notable effect on so many cultures.

You're right, it is not the goal of science to prove things. If you're looking for proofs, look towards mathematics.

This is the case with I.D.

You surely must be kidding. These are some of the most inept, unsophisticated allegations against evolution that I've ever heard. Let's look at them point-by-point to see why they fail.

As it is, the expansion of the universe suggests that it is only thousands, not millions of years old

The universe is not mere millions of years old, but many billions (thousands of millions) of years old (~14 billion in case you were wondering). The age of the universe is, in at least one way, calculated using the rate of expansion; your proposal that the rate of expansion goes against the currently accepted age makes no sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html​

the fossils of intermediate species that should be everywhere are entirely lacking (if one is found, it is reported as monumental, and they often turn out to be fakes)

Every fossil ever found is an intermediate between its ancestors and its successors (assuming that it reproduced). The evolution of whales is very well-documented in the fossil record, as is that of birds, humans, horses and countless other animals, just to name a few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils​

nor are there any live examples, there has be no recorded instance of macro-evolution in process

Macroevolution is merely the end-product of a whole lot of microevolution (as its name suggests). All animals are 'live examples' of macroevolution. The smallest unit of macroevolution is speciation (the process by which one species evolves into another), and of this there are countless observed examples.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html​

all the species we see today are distinct

Species are distinct by definition; if two grounds of animals are not distinct (meaning that they cannot interbreed), they are considered to be of the same species. In what way this falsifies evolution, I have no idea.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species​

humans are remarkably distinct from any other animal, not in their appearance,

Definitely not, since we posses remarkably similar physical characteristics to those of our non-human mammalian cousins.
http://www.soderlund.dk/wp02/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/man-sitting.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Schimpanse_zoo-leipig.jpg​

but in their abilities and intellect,

Certainly. We're some of the weakest, slowest animals out there, but we compensate for this with our intelligence, which has allowed us to reach the level of success that we have. I could say the same about cheetahs, a remarkably fast feline that could beat our top sprinter with ease (well, a rabbit could probably best our best sprinter with ease). Given that evolution is the process by which animals diversify, in what way does the biodiversity to which you refer contradict the predictions of evolution?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Cheetah_chasing_Thompsons_gazelle_crop.jpg​

and science still can't, to my knowledge, explain what caused the big bang (where did the matter come from, why did it blow up after sitting for an indefinite amount of time?) just to name a few

What does this have to do with evolution? Additionally, I'd like to point out that the Big Bang did not occur after an 'indefinite amount of time,' but rather after no time at all, since time did not exist prior to its occurrence.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatwas.htm​

 

Can I get a source to this "thousand year-old UNIVERSE"?

And sorry, but there is HEAVY evidence for evolution. The earth revolving around the sun is a theory too. Do you still think the sun revolves around us? :laugh:

 

There are actually a surprisingly (well, maybe not THAT surprisingly) large number of geocentric creationists.

 

Please tell me we've at least outgrown the whole "earth is flat" thing

 

Just to add: Fossils are very rare as it takes certain circumstances for them to be made. This being said, catching a transition species in a fossil is rare, just like any other fossil out there. If you want to be able to see the transition you need to see what it is transitioning from and what it is transitioning to. This means you need three fossils of the same line of evolutionary change. Now, since there are most likely dozens of branches off each species that end up extinct, catching the three fossils from a species that is still around today is so rare that it will most likely never happen in a true form.

As for the horses, it as been shown that it is not a perfect progression but rather different branches of the same tree, but not all the same branch (if I'm not mistaken).

 

Yes, because neither can be proven 100%

 

Fortunately, that's not how science works.


(And for the record, probably about .0005% of creationism can actually be proven).

 

Prove you exist. You can't, can you? You can't prove there is a wall in front of you but you believe that it is reasonable to conclude that if you see a wall and everyone else sees a wall, and when you touch it, it feels like a wall, and tastes like a wall, and to a bat sounds like a wall, that it is a wall. The assumptions that people make in their everyday lives in trusting their senses until proven otherwise (seeing things, etc), are necessary for someone to live. Science is based off of these assumptions that all people assume every day. You don't walk around with your eyes closed because you believe they are lying to you. You see a wall and you don't walk into it. Science is essentially an application of all of these assumptions to things that are not instinct, like seeing. If something works every time you try it you assume that it will continue acting that way in the future. If it doesn't, then you say your theory is wrong and try to make it work. Thus, there is never going to be 100% proof of anything, ever. Saying that you will believe neither because of this is just a way out of making a decision of belief that could turn out to be wrong.

 

Took the words straight out of my mouth. There is simply no physical, numerical or experimental evidence to support intelligent design; show me a single article from a reputable scientific journal that shows any acceptable form of proof, and I'll change my mind. Otherwise I strongly believe this has no scientific basis whatsoever.

 

Does evolution? Both have aspects that can be observed and indirectly tested to see if the facts correspond, but neither can be directly tested and proven.

 

Way to ignore my response. Name a single prediction of I.D. that has been verified.