Title Author Date

Why ID is not scientific Baldwin, Mike Feb 07, 2006

ID theorists claim that postulating the existence of a supernatural designer to explain natural phenomena is no less scientific than postulating evolution by natural selection (see article by Stephen Meyer on Discovery website). Is there a criterion that distinguishes these theories?

In my view, there is. The purpose of science is to add to our understanding of the Universe. By carefully observing phenomena, science tries to identify relationships between them and so draw up general rules that may help us make further discoveries. It draws inferences and tries to make hypotheses that can be tested.

If someone suggests that lung cancer is caused by some Factor X, that is a scientific theory that can be tested by examining evidence. However, it would be unscientific simply to say that the fact that lung cancer exists proves that Factor X exists. That would be circular and so would add nothing to the body of human knowledge.

Title Author Date

Why ID is not scientific Baldwin, Mike Feb 12, 2006

Ooops...my argument got truncated. My point was that ID theory claims that unexplained structures in nature must have been created by an intelligent designer but if you ask for evidence, they say "Why, just look at all those unexplained structures... that proves there was a designer!" This is just an empty circularity on the lines of my Factor X argument. Its lack of meaningful content makes it unscientific.