Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Every scientific theory should be logically evaluated based on scientific merit, not motives; evolution should not be rejected because some of its advocates are atheists, and design should not be rejected because most of its advocates are theists. In conventional scientific method, motivations can influence the proposing of a theory but should not affect its evaluation. In everyday life, we conclude that "the origin of this feature required design" when we wake up in a house, listen to a radio, read a newspaper, or drive a car. Why? Because we observe "signs of design" that we think could not be produced by the undirected natural process of non-design. A radio signal with a short string of prime numbers (like "2 3") is not complex, and it could easily occur by chance. A long string of random numbers is complex, but is not specified because it has no pattern or function. But a long string of prime numbers (2 3 5 7 11 13 17,...) is complex and (due to its conceptual functionality) is specified. Other types of specification due to functionality occur when you read a paragraph and understand the meaning, see a "painting" on the wall of a cave, or when a combination of metal is a "bicycle" you can pedal to the store. These common examples are uncontroversial, and we can infer "design" even if we didn't observe the designer or design-action. But questions arise when the design-action seems unfamiliar (so it might be supernatural?) and we're looking at design in biology. In these situations the main concerns are religious — Is a design theory a creation theory? — but critics also have methodological questions: Is an argument by analogy justifiable, in a claim that because scientists confidently infer design in a common context (for a house, radio signal, cave painting,...) they should accept the possibility of infering design in a biological context (when we ask if design-action was required to produce biological functionality in the first living cell, or in the DNA specifying a functional protein, biochemical system, or whole organism)? Proponents of detectable Intelligent Design in formative history usually ask questions about biological evolution and chemical evolution: • For each step in an extrapolation from small-scale evolution to a large-scale natural production of all biological complexity (and for this macro-evolutionary scenario as a whole), how many mutations and how much selection would be required to produce the changes in DNA that we observe, how long would this take, and how probable is it? • Are some systems irreducibly complex (because all parts are required for the system's function), and could such a system be produced by a process of step-by-step evolution if there would be no function to "select for" until all parts are present? • Could a nonliving system naturally achieve the minimal complexity (with hundreds of biomolecular parts) required to replicate itself and thus become capable of changing, in successive generations, through natural selection in neo-Darwinian evolution? Most scientists think neo-Darwinian evolution could produce all existing biological complexity. Loren Haarsma & Terry Gray explain why: "We know several evolutionary mechanisms that increase the size of a cell's genome (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal transfer, polyploidy, endosymbiont capture). Combined with natural selection, this allows information transfer from the environment to the cell's genome. In addition, the genomes of living organisms display redundancy and multitasking, allowing for the evolution of novelty and interlocking complexity. (source)" And they recognize the limits of current knowledge: "In order to know whether or not some complex piece of biological machinery could have evolved, we must know each species' genetic sequences [by genomic sequencing that has only begun recently], but also understand in great detail how gene products interact with each other in living cells." They think that currently "the jury is still out" on design questions, but "it seems most promising — both scientifically and theologically — to study biological complexity expecting to find more evidence that God designed into it the ability to self-organize." Can scientists correctly evaluate and distinguish between similar theories such as natural evolution and creation by genetic modification? Yes, if they had enough detailed historical data — such as lab reports for structure, physiology, and (especially) genome-DNA, for all organisms during a period of change — it would be easy. But with the data we actually have, it is more difficult. Logic and Testing: A particular feature was produced either by detectable design-directed action (design) or by what appears to be undirected natural process (non-design). These two possibilities are mutually exclusive, so if non-design is highly improbable, design is highly probable. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by empirical observations, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable; it is falsifiable because we can conclude that a design theory is probably true (if all non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is probably false (if any non-design theory seems highly plausible). Can design be proved? No. A design theory does not claim that non-design is impossible and design is certain, it only claims that design seems more probable. But proof is always impossible in science. Instead, scientists try to develop a high level of logically justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory. Therefore, it seems unreasonable for critics of design to demand, by using the logic of postmodern skepticism, that if design proponents cannot claim the certainty of proof, they can claim nothing. Scientific theories are evaluated based on scientific evidence-and-logic combined with philosophical perspectives that include deciding what to conclude when the evidence is not conclusive. Should we give non-design the "benefit of doubt" and put the "burden of proof" on design? Or, instead of declaring a winner, can we just say "we're not sure at this time" and continue searching, with a humble open-minded attitude, in our efforts to learn more? We can logically infer design in two ways: with positive design-logic we recognize "signs of design" as in a house, radio signal, newspaper, or cave painting; with negative design-logic we ask whether a feature could be produced by non-design, and if we answer "probably not" then we conclude it probably was produced by design. These ways of thinking are related, and a "sign of design" is usually an intuitive recognition/conclusion, based on experience and logic, that production by non-design (by undirected natural process) is highly improbable. Scholars sometimes analyze the process of science in terms of invention and justification, with each having different scientific method expectations; the initial invention of an idea can occur in any way (as when Kekule visualized the structure of benzene in a dream)but the process of justifying this idea requires scientific evidence and logic. We can think of positive design-logic as a way to invent a claim for design, and negative design-logic as an attempt to justify this claim by using scientific evidence and logic. So I propose that ID is a scientific theory & its obvious that the only reason scientists might reject this is b/c they are worried about the implications more than the truth. We need to realize we don't have all the answers and to learn more we need to investigate all options. I believe any scientist that is against design theory is mainly concerned with their welfare because they think if design were an option they would be out of a job. Design isn't a science-stopper, ID can be scientifically useful if the perspectives of design and non-design are combined, w/ creative-and-critical thinking more truth will be uncovered.