Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE

For those of you readers (If any of you still remain), who believe in Intelligent Design as science, get that out of your head. Because it's not. Even if Intelligent Design is the reason of our existence, it is still not science.

Science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomenon.

Intelligent Design:

A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance

Now look at the definition of Science closely, and the definition of Intelligent Design. There is no observation, identification, description, or experimental investigation. The closest thing Intelligent Design comes to is theoretical explanation, but that alone cannot hold intelligent design up as science.

As I will state again
Even if Intelligent Design was the reason of our existence, it is still not science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science.

What many of you must realize is that people use Intelligent Design as a panacea of all scientific flaws. For example, one of the leading arguments of Intelligent Design is the bumblebee. The basic premise surrounding the entire controversy is that a bumblebee does not agree with the laws of aerodynamics. It shouldn't fly.

However, recently (as in this month), scientists have discovered how a bumblebee flies. The bee basically functions as a racecar. It burns a lot of energy to achieve flight.

So as you can see, many people use Intelligent Design to patch up holes. However, what you must realize is that there are things that Science has yet to discover. If we do not have the information now, you cannot say, "Hey look, this is Intelligent Design!"

Furthermore, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a theory. A theory must correlate with several boundaries.

The theory must be:

· Guided by natural law,

·Explanatory by natural law,

·Testable against the empirical world,

·Tentative, and

·Falsifiable

Now, right then and there, Intelligent Design cannot work with any of those definitions given. It is not guided by natural laws, nor is it explained by natural laws. The entire point of Intelligent Design is that some thing or some one came down and created nature. That is purely artificial. Intelligent Design is not even testable, for the reason that we have nothing to test with. Darwinism at least has observation and can place animals in a scenario where we can observe how they change. But Intelligent Design has neither.

Furthermore, it cannot be falsifiable. Even with the lack of any evidence, we still cannot get around the entire problem of.....something that leaves no traces behind. For example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course"

What is sad about this example is that it fits every description of Intelligent Design. So by teaching Intelligent Design, you can also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference of either, "theory," is that one has a somewhat accepted name, and the other one is outrageous.

Furthermore, there is no legitimacy behind ID. Like I stated before, it is just a panacea of all scientific holes that have yet to be discovered. They state that there is evidence, but the flying spaghetti monster also has evidence behind its existence.

" I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

Yeah. That's it.