(February 20, 2016 at 4:37 am)robvalue Wrote: There are two big underlying problems with "intelligent design":
1) Science models reality. Intelligent design is not a model. No models are ever put forward to be tested, therefor it is not a scientific hypothesis and can never become a theory.
2) It operates under the false dichotomy that the only explanations are the theory of evolution and intelligent design.
Just to be clear: I'm not claiming there was no designer. I'm saying there's no evidence that there actually was. Problems with the theory of evolution are not evidence of design, neither are appeals to probability or complexity. You need to put forward your own model, or else you're not doing science.
If you are limiting science to something testable in the conventional sense then NO THEORY ABOUT THE PAST CAN BE CONSIDERED SCIENTIFIC.
Also it is a model. Intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing a highly specific sequence. Therefore it explains the origin of genetic information better than materialistic explanations. When you are trying to compare competing hypothesis, you look to see if there are any known causes that can produce the affect in question. Intelligence can. Natural process (at least so far) cannot. Also, the predictions made by the materialist are constantly failing to live up to reality. The predictive power of intelligent design as for what we expect to see in cells far exceeds materialist explanations.
