Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

[pocaracas]

Since when is an argument from ignorance a scientific theory?

[SteelCurtain]

Do you believe ID could be science or that design wouldn't be testable anyways?

Just as soon as they produce one single testable, falsifiable claim, I'll entertain the idea that they could be science.

You know what the smoking gun is? You don't hear anything but denials and attempts to discredit scientific findings out of the ID camp.

They literally never produce research, except in their own little echo chamber journals.

[Alex K]

Here, have some bedside reading, very educational

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmil...l_District

[zebo-the-fat]

ID fails to answer anything, if someone or something designed life, it fails to explain where that something came from. Was there a designer of the designer? All it does is move the question back one step, it answers nothing

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is the Intelligent Design in the words of ID proponents:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. 

- http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

People have attacked and criticized the ID movement as creationism masquerading as less religious. It has been referred to as "pseudoscience", misleading, and religion based rather than science based.
People have attacked it as just having negative arguments that criticize natural processes and concludes that life (and universe) is designed from that. The ID movement claims to have positive arguments for design and believe that we can detect design in nature and test it. Two common arguments they use are irreducible complexity (minimum parts for functioning in a system) and specified complexity (designed things being complex and specified). 

What do you think of it?

You said "attack" several times. The "attack" here is ID's attack on reality.

[Angrboda]

Specified complexity as it has been advanced by proponents like William Dembski is known to be pseudoscientific. Its claims to mathematical rigor are false and it depends upon unspecified statistical operations. Moreover, it's a thinly veiled cover for religious speculations as the unspecified designer is presumed to be God, and not a naturalistic speculation like panspermia. This takes it outside the realm of legitimate scientific speculation. At bottom of the specified complexity argument is the analogy that because human designers produce artifacts possessing specified complexity, the existence of specified complexity is an indication of a non-natural process (design). This ignores the fact that human capacity for design is supposedly naturalistic in origin as having been the product of evolution.

Irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and thus doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It, too, postulates a supernatural designer by necessity.

Contrary to your claim that ID proponents do not push teaching ID in schools, one of the best funded organizations, the Discovery Institute, does just that by promoting its covert campaign to "Teach The Controversy."

"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The campaign claims that fairness and equal time requires educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution'[7] where "the full range of scientific views",[8] evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory"[9] will be presented and evaluated alongside intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity[10] presented as a scientific argument against evolution through oblique references to books by design proponents listed in the bibliography of the Institute-proposed "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plans.[11]

The intelligent design movement and the Teach the Controversy campaign are directed and supported largely by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian[12][13] think tank based in Seattle, Washington. The overall goals of the movement were stated as "to defeat scientific materialism" and "to replace [it] with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

[SuperSentient]

Specified complexity as it has been advanced by proponents like William Dembski is known to be pseudoscientific.  Its claims to mathematical rigor are false and it depends upon unspecified statistical operations.  Moreover, it's a thinly veiled cover for religious speculations as the unspecified designer is presumed to be God, and not a naturalistic speculation like panspermia.  This takes it outside the realm of legitimate scientific speculation.  At bottom of the specified complexity argument is the analogy that because human designers produce artifacts possessing specified complexity, the existence of specified complexity is an indication of a non-natural process (design).  This ignores the fact that human capacity for design is supposedly naturalistic in origin as having been the product of evolution.

Irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and thus doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis.  It, too, postulates a supernatural designer by necessity.

Contrary to your claim that ID proponents do not push teaching ID in schools, one of the best funded organizations, the Discovery Institute, does just that by promoting its covert campaign to "Teach The Controversy."

"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The campaign claims that fairness and equal time requires educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution'[7] where "the full range of scientific views",[8] evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory"[9] will be presented and evaluated alongside intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity[10] presented as a scientific argument against evolution through oblique references to books by design proponents listed in the bibliography of the Institute-proposed "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plans.[11]

The intelligent design movement and the Teach the Controversy campaign are directed and supported largely by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian[12][13] think tank based in Seattle, Washington. The overall goals of the movement were stated as "to defeat scientific materialism" and "to replace [it] with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Yes, I know they want evolution to be taught as a controversy, but currently are not for pushing ID into public schools.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Specified complexity as it has been advanced by proponents like William Dembski is known to be pseudoscientific.  Its claims to mathematical rigor are false and it depends upon unspecified statistical operations.  Moreover, it's a thinly veiled cover for religious speculations as the unspecified designer is presumed to be God, and not a naturalistic speculation like panspermia.  This takes it outside the realm of legitimate scientific speculation.  At bottom of the specified complexity argument is the analogy that because human designers produce artifacts possessing specified complexity, the existence of specified complexity is an indication of a non-natural process (design).  This ignores the fact that human capacity for design is supposedly naturalistic in origin as having been the product of evolution.

Irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and thus doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis.  It, too, postulates a supernatural designer by necessity.

Contrary to your claim that ID proponents do not push teaching ID in schools, one of the best funded organizations, the Discovery Institute, does just that by promoting its covert campaign to "Teach The Controversy."

Yes, I know they want evolution to be taught as a controversy, but currently are not for pushing ID into public schools.

Because they can't come up with a rigor for it. Just bald assertions. The Unintelligent Design Institute didn't want the Dover Bored of Education to add it to the curriculum. That's why they didn't send an serious "talent" to the trial.

[brewer]

OP: Nope. The other posts here covered it just fine.

[SuperSentient]

Yes, I know they want evolution to be taught as a controversy, but currently are not for pushing ID into public schools.

Because they can't come up with a rigor for it. Just bald assertions. The Unintelligent Design Institute didn't want the Dover Bored of Education to add it to the curriculum. That's why they didn't send an serious "talent" to the trial.

Intelligent Design isn't a complete hypothesis, and I don't see it ever being that way. Maybe they also figure that they wouldn't get far by trying to push it into schools.