Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Intelligent design

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 04:52, 31 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 04:52, 31 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
Next diff →
Line 37: Line 37:
*'''[[Argument: Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested| Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested]]''' *'''[[Argument: Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested| Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested]]'''
But is ID Science? Should it be taught in a science classroom alongside the Theory of Evolution? But is ID Science? Should it be taught in a science classroom alongside the Theory of Evolution?
- 
-"Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science. 
- 
-The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few." 

Revision as of 04:52, 31 January 2008

Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

But is ID Science? Should it be taught in a science classroom alongside the Theory of Evolution?


"One of the most important characteristics of scientific hypotheses and theories is the predictive power they provide. ID does not offer any new explanation or observation about these complex structures that the Theory of Evolution does not already provide. The observation that some structures in organisms are too complex to have originated from gradual change will not help scientists to develop a better antibiotic, for example."

  • Intelligent design closes scientific inquiry the idea that “some things are too complex” is anti-scientific, since it seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try to understand the origins of the complex structures. ID discourages us from looking and asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated into evolutionary theory.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Write Subquestion here...

Yes


No


References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.