Why Intelligent Design Fails as a Science: Part 2

Through a look at court cases such as Edwards vs. Aguillard and Kitzmiller vs. Dover, as well as the subsequent changes in the language used by creationists within their own materials, one can pinpoint 1987 as the year in which Intelligent Design was first used to describe what creationists believe is an exciting new brand of science that opposes the theory of evolution.

However; why is it that, in the more than two decades that have passed since the beginning of Intelligence Design science, no research has been done in this exciting new field? Why are ID scientists trying so hard to deny that the identity of the designer and the mechanisms by which design was accomplished are even worth studying.

This video takes the stance that ID betrays itself as merely another incarnation of creationism due to the fact that no ID scientists advance any testable hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of design. Questions that any scientist worth their paycheck should have asked back in 1987 include:

1) How does Intelligent Design work?
2) Through what mechanisms does the designer accomplish design?
3) When did the designer do this?
4) Is design ongoing or did it happen only once?

and, of course, the ultimate question that ID proponents work feverishly to deny is of any importance:

5) Who is the designer?

I take the position that ID proponents and scientists alike prefer to remain agnostic regarding the identity of their designer for the simple reason that ID was born out of creationism and "creation science," a movement that's singular purpose was to inject religious teachings into public school science classrooms. This relationship is proven through an examination of court cases in which the constitutionality of creation and ID in the classroom was tested (and failed), and is then further demonstrated by the fact that ID scientists do no research, publish no papers in respected science journals, and seek to propose no mechanism to explain how their "theory of intelligent design" works. By remaining agnostic about the designer, they hope to remove as much overt religious language from their ideas as possible with the hope of someday passing the Lemon test and being ruled constitutional to teach in public schools.

The only possible (and incorrect) answers that I have heard for the question of "what are the mechanisms" would be:

1) Irreducible Complexity: Any ID proponent who makes this argument is unaware that irreducible complexity would be a result of the designers mechanism, and not the mechanism itself. Besides, I.C. has been proven to be incorrect on several occasions anyway, and scientists aren't debating this (other than ID proponents like Dr. Behe).

2) Specified Complexity: Even if this sounds compelling at first glance, specified complexity would still be result of the mechanism and not the mechanism itself; ID proponents still have not hypothesized how this complexity arose through design, and have not demonstrated how design is the only method through which complexity can arise in nature. Indeed, evolution demonstrates that complexity can arise from simple beginnings, and complexity exists in the non-living universe as well (such as in snowflakes) and is completely explainable through natural laws.

3) DNA: Similar to the specified complexity argument, an ID proponent could claim that DNA is too complex to be a natural occurance (and they quite often do). The simple rebuttal here would be that DNA is the mechanism through which life is assembled, but what mechanism was used by the designer to create DNA itself?

In the end, the mechanism by which design works is, and always was, "God did it."

Feel free to comment, criticize or critique anything I have said in my videos. Comments are, and always will be, enabled in the interest of promoting free speech. Also, feel free to use any parts of my videos in videos of your own, regardless of whether we agree or not, so long as your use of my materials is governed by fair use. I do not claim any copyright to any of my videos, and offer them for use free of restrictions.

Images from creationist textbooks were borrowed from the National Center for Science Education website.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• evolution
• intelligent
• design
• creationism
• creation
• designer
• mechanisms
• natural
• selection
• evolved
• evolving
• kitzmiller
• dover
• edwards
• aguillard
• supreme
• court
• public
• schools
• school
• bible
• god
• aliens
• micheal
• behe
• william
• dembski
• discovery
• institute
• fail
• fails
• research
• education
• teach
• controversy
• sudden
• emergence
• theory
• irreducible
• complexity
• specified
• DNA

[MrTrueConservative]

. I posit, therefore, that we separate the human race from the black apes who can be reintroduced into their natural environment such as African jungles. Or, separate them from the general population using various means to achieve this end. This is the preferred strategy for the advancement of the race.

[Pastafarian4Life]

@MrTrueConservative I don't generally reply to comments, but I feel I must address yours to keep the misconceptions from building. My videos, my personal views, and the views of the scientific community regarding evolution IN NO WAY support what you are saying. All humans, regardless of colour, evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzeees, which lived in Africa about 6 million years ago. You and I, as well as everyone else, are ALL Africans by ancestry. Evolution is not racist, nor am I.

[eatshitgoogle]

@1tabligh All you can say about Allah is that he is a fucking fag for muhammad. Since you can't even demonstrate how something produced without design will never be exact and proportionated, I can only assume you're talking out your ass, duped ignorant muslim...

[1tabligh]

Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.

[HConstantine]

@Pastafarian4Life However, he does, as his screen name indicates, merely says openly what many conservative believe but are too embarrassed to say.

[estragon9]

@JungleJargon It's ok to believe that god made hydrogen. Just don't call that belief science. Go have all the philosophical conversations you like.

Objects most certainly "do things" without being ordered. Molecules, for example, vibrate with absolutely no sense of order. Molecules also become ordered, for example, when they form crystals with no apparent intervention from an intelligence. Is it your position, that god keeps himself busy making snowflakes?

[estragon9]

Very informative video. I knew Pandas had earlier editions with but I didn't realize it was published under a different name. Sometimes its fun to ask ID proponents if they are a cdesign proponentreationist. It takes practice but it can be pronounced and dryly delivered.

[JungleJargon]

What does that have to do with anything regarding the validity of Creation?

Objects do not do anything without being ordered.

Things do not have function without being made to function.

The function of hydrogen working inside us means the entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives has a Maker.

[TheKilgoretrout]

Kitzmiller v Dover trial occurred in 2005 not 1987.  The Judge in that case was appointed by GW Bush.

[MrIntelligentdesign]

@HellspawnICX

I am saying that the old ID was already dead. he new Intelligent Design is now in Youtube.

[HellspawnICX]

@MrIntelligentdesign In case you missed it, "Do you answer any of the q's presented to ID in this vid? Reply w/ SPECIFICS, I'll watch your vids. " - Specifics? (google the word if you don't understand)