Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community because it has not come up with any peer-reviewed articles that can demonstrate anything that isn't explained by Evolution, a theory that has much more scientific evidence and experiments. In science, you cannot have two contradictory theories that explain the same thing; that's not how it works.
For a theory to disprove another, it must do two things:
1) It must propose a detailed description of how the mechanisms work, citing experiments, data, observations, etc.
2) It must explain all the evidence that the other theory has supporting it, because both theories are contradictory and therefore must explain the current evidence on their own.
I.D has failed on both these accounts. It has not provided any scientific papers on how any of the processes work, or how one would observe them working or test them. It also doesn't explain any of the evidence for Evolution. In fact, a lot of I.D proponents reject the evidence already at hand, claiming it is simply "wrong". That isn't how science works. The evidence is rarely wrong, and even if it were, you would have to explain how it were wrong (for example, look through all the experiments and point out the mistakes made). Due to the fact that these experiments have already passed peer-review, the chances of any error being missed are incredibly low.
I think Intelligent Design is possible; you don't technically have to address the identity of the designer in order to accept the theory, however you do need to explain the designer, and how it all happened.
As many scientists have said, I.D does not explain the origins of the designer. If a designer designed the designer, then this needs to be explained, and you get a infinite line going back in time to an "undesigned designer". I.D does not explain this.
Evolution on the other hand has several theories towards how it all works, with the Big Bang being the beginning of everything (time included), the "designer" being the laws of Nature, abiogenesis creating the first replicating molecules, and natural selection with random mutation causing the evolution.
For a theory to disprove another, it must do two things:
1) It must propose a detailed description of how the mechanisms work, citing experiments, data, observations, etc.
2) It must explain all the evidence that the other theory has supporting it, because both theories are contradictory and therefore must explain the current evidence on their own.
I.D has failed on both these accounts. It has not provided any scientific papers on how any of the processes work, or how one would observe them working or test them. It also doesn't explain any of the evidence for Evolution. In fact, a lot of I.D proponents reject the evidence already at hand, claiming it is simply "wrong". That isn't how science works. The evidence is rarely wrong, and even if it were, you would have to explain how it were wrong (for example, look through all the experiments and point out the mistakes made). Due to the fact that these experiments have already passed peer-review, the chances of any error being missed are incredibly low.
I think Intelligent Design is possible; you don't technically have to address the identity of the designer in order to accept the theory, however you do need to explain the designer, and how it all happened.
As many scientists have said, I.D does not explain the origins of the designer. If a designer designed the designer, then this needs to be explained, and you get a infinite line going back in time to an "undesigned designer". I.D does not explain this.
Evolution on the other hand has several theories towards how it all works, with the Big Bang being the beginning of everything (time included), the "designer" being the laws of Nature, abiogenesis creating the first replicating molecules, and natural selection with random mutation causing the evolution.
