Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

"The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologist is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations." No, it is not an effort to empirically detect anything. Empirical implies that the idea of intelligent design stands on its own merits and is strongly rooted in evidence. It is not. It relies on the unprovable idea that an omnipotent god (or design agent) exists. It also implies being unbiased, which intelligent design proponents are clearly not. All but an extreme minority of ID proponents are religious, what sort of empiricism is it if one believes one will go to hell if one doesn't worship this supposed creator? 'Apparent design' is not acknowledged by 'virtually all' biologists at all. If anything, the phrase 'apparent design' is only used in the scientific arena moments before the utter destroyal of the idea. I would like to see some evidence for 'virtually all' biologists (modern day, mind you) observing 'apparent design'. "ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information CSI)." This is not an observation. It is a guess, there is a difference. A big difference. I'm assuming by specified information, you're referring to William Dembski's 'specified complexity' idea (by the way, Dembski's opinion on scientific matter is all but worthless, he is not a scientist). Dembski's idea is based on shoddy mathematics, terrible application of scientific principles, a bias perspective, and almost unsurpassed ignorance. His whole idea revolves around calculating things that are impossible to calculate, such as the likelihood of an eye coming about. He mixes up all his definitions of information, complexity, and improbability and his work is a general mathematical mess. "Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI." The very use of the term 'design theorists' implies that these people are not scientists and they generally have no knowledge of the natural world to apply to their idea. Either way, this CSI term if I have interpreted it correctly is nothing but the mad ramblings of Dembski. "Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information." This is actually true, scientists DO perform experimental tests to determine if something is irreducibly complex. Not only have the results suggested that nothing we are aware of in our current world is irreducibly complex, but they have actually given scientists a better understanding at how certain things may have evolved. "One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed." Evidence for irreducible complexity has never been found, ever. Compare this to the mounds and mounds of evidence for evolution and what do you get? You get a bunch of religious zealots bastardising legitimate science in order to convert the world to their own dogma. Oh and before you mention it, the flagellum motor has many legitimate explanations which I would be happy to share with you outside this debate. --------------------------------------- Now, lets look at the actual definition of a scientific theory. Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. Let us go through the list and check things off in order to ascertain whether or not intelligent design is a scientific theory. Experimental evidence- *BZZZZZ* As I've shown previously, intelligent design is not supported by any empirical evidence. All cases of supposed irreducible complexity have been sufficiently answered, and even if they weren't one side not knowing something does not make the other side right. Previous observations- *BZZZZZ* Intelligent design is based around the idea that an omnipotent design agent exists, this has not been observed and by definition cannot ever be observed as such a deity would supposedly be outside of space and time. Predictive- *BZZZZZZ* Nothing new can come about with the idea of intelligent design. Nothing changes and it can make no predictions. Every answer is that everything is as it always has been and we learn nothing. Evolution on the other hand has given humanity hundreds of new ideas and has greatly advanced the progressions of things such as modern medicine. Testable- *BZZZZZZ* By definition, it is not. One cannot test for the supernatural in the natural world. For arguments sake, if such a god were to be proven to exist in the natural world, it would make the idea of ID more feasible. However as it stands now, one cannot truly test ID.