Why is intelligent design not a fact?

Question

Although Intelligent design obviously implies an intelligent designer, the theory is not called the intelligent designer theory.

Now the fact is that biological organisms are designs. It is also a fact that they are very clever designs despite the fact that some guy on the Internet doesn't know what the appendix does. The fact is that if someone just copied a simple design from an organism he would be considered a genius.

So whether you think an intelligent design needs an intelligent designer or not the fact still remains that life forms are intelligent designs.

If not why not?

Answer 1

It's not a fact because IDers' claims are scientifically untestable! An intelligent designer has not been empirically observed in nature; it is not part of methodological naturalism.



Intelligent design is thinly veiled creationism. Proponents of this theory contend that complex physical structures, such as the human eye, must be the result of an intelligent designer or cause. Similarly, a watch has a complex set of structural components, so this must mean it has a designer. This is referred to as the irreducible complexity argument.



I suggest you research more about "emergent properties" and how they can give the false impression of being intelligently designed.



EDIT: A question for you now. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the ubiquitous structural complexity that surrounds us, is it equally valid to suggest that the intelligent designer must also be a complex entity which requires an explanation?



Invoking a supernatural cause at the limits of one's knowledge puts a halt to scientific inquiry.

Answer 2

The reason that Intelligent design is not a fact is because no one has proven that it is. In order for something to be considered a fact, you need to demonstrate that it is through some sort of test or experiment, and the results have to be reproducible, or in other words it has to work every time. Sure you have some precarious evidence that suggest your "theory" may be true, but when it all boils down there really isn't any hard evidence to prove your claim. As for biological organisms being designs, well that's just wrong to claim fact there, first of all calling them designs implies that they were created by something, which automatically swings the argument in your favor. I'll have none of that fallacious thinking thank you. Second of all if you've done your homework in biology class you should know that change over time (yes "evolution" I know) is a fact we can demonstrate this by using bacteria and antibiotics. If you introduce an antibiotic into an environment with bacteria they will die, but there is a chance that one of those bacteria will develop a mutation which could be useful for resisting the antibiotic allowing it to survive. since bacteria reproduce so quickly that one special bacteria makes a bunch of new ones with the same resistance to the antibiotic. you now have a new organism similar to the last but different in that it can resist the antibiotic. Now of course this does't seem to clever of an improvement when you look at a human being, but you have to remember that this process has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. There's your reason

Answer 3

In order for something to be a theory you need a lot of proof to support the claim. There is just not any proof that something designed life. It's not like science is trying to ignore this option (although I suspect some scientists do) we just can't find any evidence for intelligent design.



We have a theory for how life evolved, but as far as I know nothing really explains how it was possible for life to come into existence in the first place. Some people try to fill this gap with the idea of intelligent design and I guess there's nothing wrong with this, but it's far from being a scientific theory and it is extremely arrogant to call it a fact.

Answer 4

Biological organism are complex designs that were formed over millions of years of trial and error, but they were not designed by another organism, like God. Intelligent design is the theory that all life was created by a supreme being, which most scientist reject!

Answer 5

Just making the assertion that biological organisms are "designs" does not make it so. You must present evidence that organisms were designed, in order for them to be designs. Since you have not done that we will continue to consider them organisms.



An organism is not a design, just like a house is not a blueprint.

Answer 6

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. Should I report you for ranting, or should I take your question seriously. Well, I'll do the difficult thing. I will pretend that you are actually uninformed and are asking a sincere question, no matter how difficult that is to believe.

Design, noun. A plan or scheme conceived in the mind. (The New Shorter Oxford English DIctionary)

Next time you need help with your vocabulary, please consult a dictionary first.

----

Oh, sorry. Maybe I need to spell it out for you? You MUST have a designer using the above definition.

Let me know if I need to use smaller words.

Answer 7

via fact it make no predictions with the help of which its claims must be examined. as an occasion: evolution skill that organisms that are heavily appropriate ought to teach this degree of similarity of their unit of heredity. It additionally skill that this could contain ancestral valuable aspects that are actually not inevitably useful to the organism itself. If those valuable aspects have been substantial to a prior organisms then they could stay usually intact yet could confer no earnings to the modern-day host. Atavistic features extra healthful this completely. That human beings can enhance completely useful tails, and that whales can enhance completely useful legs, demonstrates that they comprise each and all of the mandatory genetic textile to make such systems. in addition to, genetic diagnosis shows that they are encoded with the help of genes that are actually not translated into proteins via a suppressor. this implies that they have got the two been clothier with a extensive bite of records which became into on no account going to be of any use to the or that they have got tailored from an organism for which those features presented some style of earnings. sensible layout could require that those genes do no longer exist, because it may advise an incompetent clothier. Evolution with the help of mutation and organic decision could advise that the DO exist as they could be no longer likely to abruptly disappear from the genome after turning out to be non-useful. notice that i'm assuming the above identity prediction via fact they are so desperate to no longer unquestionably state any. i do no longer think of my assumed prediction is unreasonable. sensible layout DOES make the prediction that valuable aspects can not evolve with the help of utilising ransom mutation and decision, although. it is something which became into disproven with the help of a valid mathematical diagnosis with the help of Nilsson and Pelger. Their diagnosis became into in accordance with straightforward statistical possibility and confirmed that an uncomplicated shape can style a complicated one in an extremely couple of minutes. motives like this are why identity is seen incorrect, no longer to show non-real.

Answer 8

There is definitely some intelligence in intelligent design.

Answer 9

Because our retinas are backwards. No intelligent designer would have made them that way.