Intelligent Design: Did you design yourself?

[Heywood]

History of Gravity
Gravity is a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for falling. Gravity is not a physical object, and thus it has not been directly observed. Therefore, any statement about falling should be considered as theory, not fact. There are many unanswered questions about falling, including:
Why do apples fall, but birds fly?
Why do objects of different mass fall at the same speed?
What is terminal velocity? I mean, how can a velocity "terminate"?
Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday, you may contribute to the theories of falling.
Because Newton's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is yet no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Falling is an explanation of falling that differs from Newton's view.

http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Intelligent_Falling

Arguing with internet memes instead of actually responding to the content of peoples posts is a sign of weak mindedness. You are making yourself to be a fool. I am done trying to carry on an honest discussion with you....you are simply unable or unwilling.

Good day.

---

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. 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.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

That's not science. Even if you demonstrate "if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI" this does not mean "If we see high levels of CSI it must have been designed".

This is your logic applied to flying animals: "if an animal can fly, it will have wings" therefore when we observe an animal with wings, it must be able to fly. This of course doesn't work in the case of flightless birds.

Can't the same criticism be leveled against evolution?

For instance could one say "Evolution is not science, Even if you demonstrate "multiple evolutionary pathways", this does not mean it must have evolved"?

I don't think it is unreasonable to look for objective ways to differentiate designed things from those which are undesigned. I'm not convinced looking for high levels of CSI are a good way to do it, but it is, in my opinion, a good faith attempt at solving a problem.