Mr Spinkles
Mr
I know, I know...this topic has been beaten to death. But here's something I wrote for English class anyway. Those who look carefully may even be able to pick out things I directly copied/pasted/revised a bit from posts I have written on this very forum. 
:jam: Keep in mind this is only a first draft...
We humans live in a vast, complex, and awe-inspiring cosmos. Ours is a universe in which matter condenses to form gaseous ringed planets, huge red giant stars, and spectacular spiral galaxies; in which organic matter forms in a stunning variety of atmospheres and oceans and climates. On this tiny blue planet, organic matter has evolved into life forms so bizarre and beautiful that it calls to mind images of ants running, sharks capturing prey, gorillas nursing their young, flowers blooming, and groups of flamingos taking off, all as if cued to the music of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
But how exactly did we get here? What laws of nature cause these wonders? Science has pursued answers to these questions for centuries, but only relatively recently have we begun to shed light on these answers. In the mid-1960s scientists detected the "cosmic microwave background radiation" (Seeds 419) predicted by big bang theorists. Quite literally, we know the big bang exists because "using radio and infrared telescopes, we can see it happening" (Seeds 420). In 1859 Darwin published his book "The Origin of Species" in which he proposed that living organisms evolve into new species via natural selection and genetic variation. Since that time, evolution has become one of the most well established theories in the history of science. Adaptation, heredity, and the formation of new species via natural selection and genetic mutation have all been directly observed. In fact, some have suggested that the term "law" would better characterize the high degree of confidence scientists have in evolution (Seeds 52).
Some religious organizations, however, claim that scientists are biased by their philosophical beliefs--namely, naturalism (Harris, Calvert 536). Advocates of "intelligent design" theory, or ID, believe that the universe and all life within it "are the product of...a combination of law, chance, and design--the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy," (Harris, Calvert 531). Furthermore, they claim that "ID is science and not religion," (Harris, Calvert 531). Certainly many people believe in a "mind" that has the power to manipulate matter and energy--but most call it "God" and rest their beliefs on faith rather than scientific proof. After all, neither evolution nor big bang theory claim the nonexistence or nonparticipation of any deity/deities. As Robert Todd Carroll of www.skepdic.com points out:
"There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist."
ID proponents would draw us into a metaphysical debate, but the real controversy is not whether or not an intelligent entity exists--scientists leave that question to the philosophers. The real controversy is: are the claims of intelligent design scientific?
If organisms have truly been intelligently designed, our puny intellects should not be able to conceive of a way to improve upon these designs. Yet my puny intelligence can conceive of ways in which many organisms could be vastly improved. Whales and dolphins could be given gills to better suit their environment, and humans could be rid of pesky wisdom teeth (Colby et. al.). In addition, human males such as myself would do much better if their urethras did not pass straight through the prostate gland, which can often expand and block the urethra (a common medical problem) (Colby et. al.). These observations seem to support evolution as a sometimes clumsy process of trial and error, not an intelligently designed miracle. Of course, ID supporters can always retreat into theology given these observations by saying "God could have a reason that we can't see" or "We can't understand God's ways." Such reliance on metaphysical arguments clearly belongs in the realm of philosophy--not science.
:jam: Keep in mind this is only a first draft...Is "Intelligent Design" Theory Scientific?
We humans live in a vast, complex, and awe-inspiring cosmos. Ours is a universe in which matter condenses to form gaseous ringed planets, huge red giant stars, and spectacular spiral galaxies; in which organic matter forms in a stunning variety of atmospheres and oceans and climates. On this tiny blue planet, organic matter has evolved into life forms so bizarre and beautiful that it calls to mind images of ants running, sharks capturing prey, gorillas nursing their young, flowers blooming, and groups of flamingos taking off, all as if cued to the music of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
But how exactly did we get here? What laws of nature cause these wonders? Science has pursued answers to these questions for centuries, but only relatively recently have we begun to shed light on these answers. In the mid-1960s scientists detected the "cosmic microwave background radiation" (Seeds 419) predicted by big bang theorists. Quite literally, we know the big bang exists because "using radio and infrared telescopes, we can see it happening" (Seeds 420). In 1859 Darwin published his book "The Origin of Species" in which he proposed that living organisms evolve into new species via natural selection and genetic variation. Since that time, evolution has become one of the most well established theories in the history of science. Adaptation, heredity, and the formation of new species via natural selection and genetic mutation have all been directly observed. In fact, some have suggested that the term "law" would better characterize the high degree of confidence scientists have in evolution (Seeds 52).
Some religious organizations, however, claim that scientists are biased by their philosophical beliefs--namely, naturalism (Harris, Calvert 536). Advocates of "intelligent design" theory, or ID, believe that the universe and all life within it "are the product of...a combination of law, chance, and design--the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy," (Harris, Calvert 531). Furthermore, they claim that "ID is science and not religion," (Harris, Calvert 531). Certainly many people believe in a "mind" that has the power to manipulate matter and energy--but most call it "God" and rest their beliefs on faith rather than scientific proof. After all, neither evolution nor big bang theory claim the nonexistence or nonparticipation of any deity/deities. As Robert Todd Carroll of www.skepdic.com points out:
"There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist."
ID proponents would draw us into a metaphysical debate, but the real controversy is not whether or not an intelligent entity exists--scientists leave that question to the philosophers. The real controversy is: are the claims of intelligent design scientific?
Unscientific Arguments
ID relies heavily on arguments that have no scientific basis. For example, Harris and Calvert propose "that there are profound religious, ethical, and moral implications" in this debate (532). This claim may or may not contain some validity, but nonetheless no respectable peer-reviewed journal would publish a paper arguing that ID must be true because it has pleasant "religious, ethical" or "moral implications". Besides, science has contradicted numerous religious beliefs in the past, but that has had no consequence on their validity. In 1616, Galileo's telescopic observations came into direct contradiction with Church teaching, but that didn't stop him from championing the Copernican model of the universe which gave rise to modern science (Seeds 56). Some arguments put forward by intelligent design advocates demonstrate an ignorance of basic evolutionary concepts. Many ask the question "If humans evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" Of course, humans did not evolve from monkeys--humans and monkeys merely share a common ancestor. In addition, even if humans had evolved from monkeys that doesn't mean monkeys would have to go extinct. We should picture evolution as a branching tree, not a straight ladder. Finally, many ID supporters posit an argument for ID that goes something like this: "Evolution is wrong because [insert arguments against evolution here]". Even a casual analysis reveals that this is not an argument for ID, but against evolution.
Scientific Theories Make Predictions
Isaac Newton "recognized that the force of gravity decreases as the square of the distance between...objects increases" (Seeds 58). In other words, what would soon become Newton's famous laws made a prediction: if we know the distance, we should know the relative force of gravity. Newton's predictions, when calculated to test their validity, proved so accurate that they became known as scientific laws of nature. In contrast, ID safeguards itself from this requirement by predicting things that cannot be tested--effectively, it does not predict anything. Let's say we have an ecosystem: assuming ID is true, what will it predict will happen to that ecosystem? In fact whatever happens to the ecosystem, and whether or not it is the result of a supernatural intelligence, the observations could not possibly prove that an intelligence did not cause it (after all, even if we know all the chemical reactions that went on in that ecosystem, an intelligence could have caused those reactions). Unlike Newton's laws, no potential observations could falsify ID, and all observations could be interpreted to confirm it.
If organisms have truly been intelligently designed, our puny intellects should not be able to conceive of a way to improve upon these designs. Yet my puny intelligence can conceive of ways in which many organisms could be vastly improved. Whales and dolphins could be given gills to better suit their environment, and humans could be rid of pesky wisdom teeth (Colby et. al.). In addition, human males such as myself would do much better if their urethras did not pass straight through the prostate gland, which can often expand and block the urethra (a common medical problem) (Colby et. al.). These observations seem to support evolution as a sometimes clumsy process of trial and error, not an intelligently designed miracle. Of course, ID supporters can always retreat into theology given these observations by saying "God could have a reason that we can't see" or "We can't understand God's ways." Such reliance on metaphysical arguments clearly belongs in the realm of philosophy--not science.
Science Relies on Observation
Scientists make it their goal to understand the observable, detectable universe around us. The question of whether or not the observable universe constitutes the "real" universe, or what possibly exists outside of that which can be detected, is irrelevant to scientific inquiry and belongs wholly within the realm of philosophy and/or religion and/or Miss Cleo. By definition, the "mind" or "intelligence" to which ID advocates refer has supernatural qualities, and therefore cannot be detected or observed but merely speculated upon. (Even their speculations show inconsistency--why would an omni benevolent being designedly create such natural horrors as flesh-eating bacteria?) Though ID claims that this intelligence has the ability to manipulate matter and energy, this has never been observed, nor can a scientific experiment possibly detect this manipulation. At best, an experiment could detect energy and matter behaving in ways as-not-yet-understood, but because ID makes no predictions there is no way of verifying that the observed interactions resulted from any supernatural entity (much less an intelligent one).
