Resolution: Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory

As the initiator of the debate, I am happy to take on the burden of proof. It is my intent to demonstrate that Intelligent Design does not meet standards of qualification that distinguish a Scientific Theory from other ideas. I want to make one thing perfectly clear before we begin though: it is not my intent through this argument to make a value judgement as to the truth or falsity of ID, just show that it is unscientific. Unscientific is not, in this sense, an epithet intended to denigrate an idea as "bad" or "dumb" or "unfounded," rather, it is intended to mean exactly as the Merriam-Webster defines it:not scientific: as . .. b: not being in accord with the principles and methods of science [1]WHAT IS SCIENCE? So how does one determine whether or not an idea is scientific? Well as long as were in the Merriam-Webster, let's hop on over to "Scientific Method" and see what it says. The Scientific Method is described here as:principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses [2]Basically, if we were to simplify it down to its bare bones science is methodology that aims to explain why things are the way that they are. We all learned the steps to the scientific method in elementary school: observe, research, hypothesize, experiment, conclude, present. Namely: observe a phenomenon (ask a question), see what others who have asked that question have found, come up with an educated guess, test that guess, observe again (your results), and present your results for review. If you discover something new and others are able to repeat and verify your results, then you've added a new observation to the collection of facts in need of explanation. This, at its most basic, is how science works. [3] WHAT IS A THEORY? Which brings us to Theories. A Theory, in the scientific sense, is either a consistently verified hypothesis (proven again and again through retesting) or a framework used to explain a group of related observations. [4] Colloquially, "theory" often is used as a synonym for "guess"; in the scientific community, however, it is one of the strongest affirmations of an idea's merit. [5] In order to become a theory, an idea has to be supported by a vast body of evidence. Colloquially, there is sometimes confusion about the difference between a law and a theory. Because the word "law" has a connotation of absolutism and objectivity and theory sounds like a less absolute term, people who don't regularly participate in the scientific community sometimes make the mistake of assuming that a law is more true than a theory. Laws, however, are functionally different from theories. A theory is a principle that is used to explain and predict relations around a set of observations. A law generally predicts how nature will behave in certain circumstances without always providing an explanatory element For example: Newton's Law of Universal Gravity states that F= G(m1-m2/r^2)Newton's Theory of Gravity laid out in full in his Principia is an explanation that posits that gravity is a force proportional to the mass between two objects but inversely proportional to the distance between them. [6]The word Theory is used to describe such influential and established ideas as the Atom, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, The Heliocentric Theory (that the earth orbits the sun), and, of course, the Theory of Gravity (among others. ) Theories are in no sense absolutely true (which we'll get to in a bit) but they are established, reliable, and respected in the scientific community. WHAT IS ID (Intelligent Design)? Intelligent Design is the idea that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the irreducible complexity of living organisms. In place of natural selection, ID posits the existence of a supernatural designer that actively involves itself in the intentional crafting biological creatures through evolutionary processes to arrive at the complexity we observe in even the simplest forms of living organisms today. [7]For the sake of Brevity I will let that definition of ID stand unless he feels that I've unfairly characterized the idea. One Note: Intelligent Design should not be confused with classic Creationism. Proponents of Intelligent Design do not question the evolution of complex mufti-cellular life from single-celled organisms, nor do they generally suggest that humans are fundamentally different from the rest of the animal kingdom in that they came to exist by processes other than evolution. The difference between ID and evolution by natural selection is the belief that the evolutionary process is intentionally crafted by a Designer. ON FALSIFICATIONTo recap, then, in order for something to rightly be called a scientific theory it has to fall within the confines and principles of the scientific method and has to explain a number of observations. It has to begin with an observation or set of observations that propose(s) a question. It has to present a hypothesis that attempts to answer that question. It has to test that hypothesis or test predictions that would be true if the hypothesis were true. It has to observe the results of the experiment, and come to a conclusion that takes the new data into account. The method begins and ends with observation, and at every point is checked by a principle called falsification. Falsification is the idea that if a supposed scientific "theory" doesn't yield testable results (if it can't be proven to be false) then it isn't really science. It's one of the primary ways that science is distinguished from both pseudoscience and philosophy. [8] This very point has led to contention by a number of theoretical physicists that "String Theory" should be considered more a philosophical idea than scientific theory at this point since it's not an idea that makes testable predictions. [9]THE ARGUMENT (at last) Being that a scientific theory is classified as an idea with explanatory power that falls within the parameters and confines of the scientific method, and being that the scientific method requires the checks of either direct or indirect testability (falsifiability) to in order for an idea to fall under the umbrella of science, I think that it's clear that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Intelligent Design posits as its primary explanatory principle a totally untestable and unverifiable variable: namely, its Designer. It can never be falsified because the idea of a Designer is neither predictive nor testable. You cannot design a test to specifically demonstrate that a Designer takes an active role in evolutionary development. Also, because of the arbitrary nature of an Intelligent Agent, you can't use the notion of a designer to make any predictions about the ways things would be if the theory were true. Basically, an Intelligent Designer will always design things to be the way that they are (or, at least, it cannot be demonstrated that he wouldn't), so the observations or predictions of Intelligent Design are always post-hoc reasoning based on a preconceived bias. It may be a philosophical idea, but it does not meet the criteria to be a scientific theory. That does not make it bad; it makes it not science. I await my opponent's response. (CITATIONS IN THE DEBATE COMMENTS)