Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

adele_g wrote:

Well, I suppose it really depends on how you see that deity. For me, God would take the time and the effort to create such a wonderful and unique Earth because he wanted to put us humans on it. I believe he created humans to have personal relationship with Him, that's why he would go to such effort to make us intelligent beings that can wonder and reason and maybe eventually realise the purpose of our existence on Earth. It wasn't so he could watch us live out our lives aimlessly. I believe there is a purpose to our existence, and that the fact that there is a design so evident in the formation of even the smallest particles in existence is also evidence that there is a design to life itself.

That's an interesting theory. Which correct predictions did this theory make, and how does its record of correct predictions compare with evolutionary biology, geology, and astronomy?

I am not trying to say that the existence of God is proven, or that the theory of intelligent design is either. All I am trying to say is that it's worth looking at all options even if that means one that includes a God, no matter what the implications would be for your life. I am well aware that the intelligent design theory has not been proven, but I am sick of people going on as if evolution has been.

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre P. Grassé, L'Evolution du Vivant (1973), published in English translation as The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977)

Esther Kaplan's "With God On Their Side".

What I'm getting at is that the Scientific Method itself is based on presuppositions, like materialism which georgeob pointed out, not merely the features of SM, like hypotheses.

"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created..... Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinist theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories.... Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that [the data] should confirm it; the premises imply the conclusions.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how's that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

... The scientific method has four steps[/b]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature ...... ... It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
[/list]
When I look at this description, I don't see the method presupposing much. So I'd like to ask you, InfraBlue: What is it that you think the method is presupposing?