Is there any scientific merit to the theory of intelligent design?
Speaking as a practicing scientist, and specifically as a biologist, the short answer is simply, no. The long answer involves objections on three fronts: the lack of any evidence *for* ID, the fact that ID cannot contribute usefully to research, and the fact that ID violates some of the basic tenets of science by requiring the supernatural and proposing the untestable. “Intelligent Design” rests on the following assertions: that at least some of the mechanisms and processes of life are so unlikely that they could not have appeared without intelligent intervention; that some biological mechanisms are “irreducably complex”, that is, that there are no simpler forms of these mechanisms which would still function, and no developmental pathway whereby they could have come into existance in stages, as evolution would demand; and that “complex specified information” (CSI) such as is found in the genetic code is ALWAYS the result of an intelligence. ID proponents further argue that such “intell
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It has not even made it to hypothisis yet. Actually, there are so many variations that no single thesis has been agreed upon in the religious circles. As soon as a unified thesis is presented for open scientific review and testing, then and only then could any merit be considered.
