Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Asmodee]

I've been giving this some long thought, the idea that intelligent design is a science, and I have a definitive answer to that.

First of all, they want to prove evolution "wrong".  They have no idea how ludicrous that is.  General relativity is "wrong".  That's why we also need quantum mechanics, which is also "wrong".  Quantum mechanics works only on the quantum level, general relativity only on the non-quantum level.  Both theories are "wrong".  We know this.  It is a fact.  But we still use both.  Why are we using theories which we know to be wrong?  Because they work.  General relativity allows us to predict where a space vehicle will be at a given time YEARS before its launch, accurate to within about 1 second.  We know it's wrong, but it still works.  And that pretty much sums up scientific theory.  It's not about getting "the right answer", it's about a useful mechanic for explaining the universe.  So it's wrong, but we still use it because its answers are right, just not at the quantum level.

So what does that tell us about proving evolution to be "wrong"?  It tells us you've got your work cut out for you.  EVEN IF you proved design were real evolution would STILL be a useful, working theory.  You would have only proved 1 part, that at least some things were designed.  You would not have proved that evolution doesn't happen at all and you certainly wouldn't have proved that the entire theory was useless.  Evolution makes predictions which are useful.  It gives us mechanisms for designing plant strains, breeding animals, developing medicines, predicting which strain of the flu we need to inoculate people against this year, genetic engineering, even weapons research.

So what happens if you throw out evolution altogether and you replace it with intelligent design?  What happens if the people who currently use the theory of evolution to further their work now have to rely on intelligent design in their work?  Basically, all work stops.  Intelligent design tells us NOTHING!  It makes no predictions for how genes will change over time.  Its in-depth "like begets like" research may be on the cutting edge <snicker>, but it won't help you produce "not-like" new plant strains.  In fact the ONLY prediction ID makes is that if you look for evidence of design you will find it.  What use is that in science?  If you look for evidence of the word "penis" in the Bible you will find it.  Try taking the first letter of every third word.  If that doesn't work, try taking the 5th letter of one word, then the 3rd letter of the first word of the next book, then...whatever.  Eventually if you look for it you WILL find it.  Is this now the penile theory of Biblical dickishness, a new, cutting edge scientific theory?  It does make any useful predictions.  It doesn't give any explanations for why this is true.  It only makes a single prediction, just like ID, that if you look for it, you'll find it.  That is useless garbage, not science.

THE BEST ID proponents can hope for is to integrate design into evolution.  Evolution isn't going anywhere and ID is certainly no "replacement" for evolution because it's completely useless, scientifically speaking.  It does not further science in any way.  In fact, it actually seeks to take science backward, going from a useful, working theory which aids in many branches of research and development to a useless mess, its only prediction being that it's "right".  And that right there is a red flag, a "theory" claiming to be "right".  Replace evolution with ID today and the result would be a 21st century dark ages where genetic and biological sciences screech to a halt because ID is simply not science.  Even if it were, it wouldn't be useful science.  But that's not really surprising, given that its target audience was originally 9th grade biology class, not the scientific community.

So if ID is science, what would happen if we throw out evolution and replace it outright with ID?  That IS what ID proponents want.  So do tell me about all the great genetic advancements ID has brought us.  Or how "like begets like" helps to breed winning race horses.  I can just imagine that research.  "ID tells us that if I breed this horse with that horse...I'll get a third horse!  With this information we'll breed a winner for sure!!!"  Can it help you make herbicide resistant corn?  Bigger tomatoes?  Insect resistant potatoes?  What part of the "theory" of intelligent design do researchers use to develop new medicines or determine which flu strain to inoculate against?  The answers are no genetic advancements, it can't help in animal breeding, it can't help make herbicide resistant corn, bigger tomatoes or insect resistant potatoes, it can't help medical researchers and it has no mechanism for predicting which strain of the flu will be most prevalent this year.  It's only prediction is that its own prediction is true.