In the last decade, there have been numerous technological advancements that have led toward a rediscovering of what once was called myth and religious belief leading to the questioning of Darwin’s theory of evolution. For many scientists there is no debate on “the design of organisms, their complexity, diversity, and marvelous contrivances as the result of the natural processes.”(Francisco J. Ayala, 2007, ch 3) Scientists to Archeologists have discovered evidence of advanced civilizations to subspecies of humans and DNA coding that raise questions on our origins. As a result of these discoveries, many experts are asking whether intelligent design is science. We may have to rethink the way we view who we are given “the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (Meyer, 2018). This paper will begin to explore the specific question of whether Intelligent design is science or not.
Presentation of an Argument that Intelligence is a science
Premise 1: One of the most obvious indicators of the fact that intelligent design (ID) is a science is the fact that it incorporates scientific methods when making its claim. The scientific method is generally described as a four-step process that involves observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. The intelligent agents are the ones that produce complex and specified information (CSI) as the observation in ID. The design theorists then hypothesize that any designed natural object has high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform the necessary experimental tests on natural objects to determine whether or not they contain the complex and specified information. The experimental researches then draw their conclusion depending on whether they uncover any irreducible complexity in the organisms.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Premise 2: ID is comprised of a number of testable CSIs, with the perfect example being irreducible complexity, which is discovered and tested by taking biological structures through a number of knockout experiments that involve reverse engineering.
Premise 3: The Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling made an assessment on the constitutionality of teaching ID in schools, and it is then that a conclusion was made that ID is not a science but a religion. Most people have responded against this ruling, with the most famous response being Intelligent Design will survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, who brings out a clear argument to show the scientific aspect of ID.
Conclusion
This paper has done a great job in bringing out the key reasons why Intelligent Design can be classified as a science. The strongest reason is the fact that ID follows a scientific method and procedure when making its claims, and this involves, observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. However, this article has a shortcoming in that (Luskin, 2018) admits that there is no clear definition of science. For this reason, it is not entirely possible to classify the methods used in ID as being scientific.
Presentation of an Argument that Intelligence is not a Science
Detractors of this notion of ID as a science argue that it is simply creationism in disguise. Some of the arguments placed forth against ID as a science include:
Premise 1: Intelligent Design is a concept that is promoted to explain diversity of life and the molecular and anatomical features of several organisms such as bacterial flagella. It claims to explain the natural world, an explanation in which it falls short dramatically. For instance, ID gives an explanation of the existence of a given bacterial flagellum but it does not provide clear information regarding who the designer might be and how the designer might have gone about constructing the flagellum.
Premise 2: A scientific idea is supposed to generate specific expectations regarding the observations of the natural world with the goal of refuting or supporting the idea in question. However, ID does not give a clear specification of how the designer operates or who the designer is. For this reason, it falls short from being referred to as a science.
Premise 3: A scientific idea is supposed to generate specific expectations regarding the observations of the natural world with the goal of refuting or supporting the idea in question. However, ID does not give a clear specification of how the designer operates or who the designer is. For this reason, it falls short from being referred to as a science.
Premise 4: Intelligent Design lacks a central mechanism, which makes it untestable and it lacks the evidence that is relevant to the idea. Some ID proponents have made efforts to create testable claims that are more focused on discrediting evolution rather than the mechanism of ID. These claims are tested and refuted by the little available evidence.
Premise 5: Another major argument against Intelligent Design is the fact that philosophers cannot clearly define science, and this means that we cannot conclude ID to be something that is yet to be defined.
Conclusion: From this argument, it is evident that ID cannot be properly referred to as a science because of the many opposing aspects in this case. All the five arguments against the concept of ID being a science have been clearly brought out.
Evaluation of Arguments
All these arguments (for and against ID being a science) are well explained in their respect. The reasoning brought forth us scholarly and excellent. For the presentation of the argument that intelligence is a science, the argument is mainly centralized in the Intelligent Design will survive Kitzmiller v. Dover. These arguments are quite technical and they are mainly directed towards elite scholars who are doing research on Intelligence Design. The key logical fallacies in these arguments is the fact that there is no clear definition of what science is, yet the argument is that ID is a science. On the other hand, the argument for the presentation of the argument that intelligence is not a science is based on simple, clear, and precise language. This article mainly targets researchers who are not well-equipped with information regarding the topic. It is excellent for newbies in this field because it uses simple language.
Conclusion
This discussion has done a great job in evaluating ID as a science and the other way around. The strongest argument for intelligence as a science is the fact that ID follows a scientific method and procedure when making its claims, and this involves, observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. However, it is evident that ID cannot be properly referred to as a science because of the many opposing aspects in this case so we conclude that it is not a science.
References
The evolution of intelligent design: between religion and science .Revista Científica General José María Córdova; abr-jun2018, Vol. 16 Issue 22, p61-80, 20p Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=2cf3236e-4fc8-46dd-abc0-5a0038a6f543%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=131699945&db=edb
Darwin's gift to science and religion [electronic resource] / by Francisco J. Ayala. 2007 04 23 https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/lib/ashford-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4388351
Luskin. (2018). Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science | Evolution News. Retrieved
From
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/
