why is intelligent design NOT a theory?

Toby Women: Intelligent design fails to be a scientific theory because it does not produce testable hypotheses. A scientific theory is not only based on observations of the world around us but puts forth questions that can be tested as to whether they are true or not. Intelligent design on the other hand is based purely on faith which is not testable - you either believe it or not. For a discussion on intelligent design vs. evolution by several authors click on the following: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.ht......Show more

Alisa Kaleiwahea: I mean why does a glass shattering on a tiled floor make more sound than on a rug. How do the sound waves react to this?

Margart Stimpert: Im not sure if it is an organ, just guessing. But this is for Biology, please help!

Branden Round: It is not falsifiable as theory and it is not supported by the evidence. To clear up a supposed mystery, the appearance of design, it proposes an even greater myster! y in the designer. It is merely a " god of the gap " argument. Look, it says, this is " irreducible complex ", so it must have a designer. The problem with ID is this ridiculous assumption that things, such as the flagellate of bacteria, are irreducible complex, when they have been explained very well for years. An intellectually lazy way to posit a " creator ". This is all ID is....Show more

Esmeralda Pigram: their Butt,.

Melina Minneweather: I think you could argue that intelligent design is a theory since it attempts to describe the mechanism for the diversity of living things. However, intelligent design depends on the existence of an external, directing entity for the changes (i.e. evolution) of life on earth. Natural selection on the other hand is self contained, requiring no external components, and therefore is generally regarded as the more robust theory of the two.It is worth introducing you to Occam's razor, if you are not already familiar with this c! oncept. In summary, Occam's razor says that if you have two or! more explanations for how a natural mechanism works, the least complex is more likely to have occurred. A good example of this is the Heliocentric view of the solar system, versus the Earth-centric. In earlier times, it was believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. However, there were some observations of planetary motion which contradicted this view - essentially that some planets seemed to slow down in their progress across the heavens, reverse for a short while before continuing back on their way as normal. Various complex workarounds were produced to explain this phenomenon whilst maintaining the Earth's position as central to all other celestial bodies. Placing the sun at the centre of the solar system with all the planets (Earth included) orbiting explained the observed phenomenon and removed the need for any complex planetary dances.So, although I would personally say that intelligent design is a theory, it's not as good at describing evolution as natu! ral selection since it is not self contained - i.e. who/what is the intelligence doing the designing and where did that intelligence come from/evolve/etc?If you want some more background to flesh this out, go to the Wikipedia....Show more

Bryant Chaudhry: It's not a theory because IT IS THE TRUTH, thus sayeth the Lord.

Marty Tichnell: there is an exceptionally clean consensus in the medical community that clever layout isn't a valid medical option to evolutionary concept. The Nova episode some weeks decrease back did a robust activity of exhibiting why it is not any solid. i do no longer think of you could say it is lots of a "non secular view" the two. it incredibly is a planned cheating attempt at trickery which abuses some language and arguments characteristic of solid technological awareness to make it appear as if clever layout is being illegitimately suppressed as an theory. it is an insidiously clever tactic and one those people who stand for reason could! be continuously on look after against....Show more

Raymon Fiene:! 1. There's no direct evidence of the Intelligent Designer(s).2. We don't know when or where the Intelligent Designer(s) acted, and what he/she/it/they did at those times. There's no direct evidence of actual activity of the Intelligent Designer(s).3. There's another explanation for which there is better evidence.

Ronny Nowzari: They don't have an excretory system. They have however an hydrovasculary system that helps with that.Hope I helped!

Lu Snide: You have two potential questions here. But to start with your second one:A glass that is held stationary has potential energyA glass that is dropped undergoes a conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.Upon impacting another object (floor) the glass stops moving downward, thus the kinetic energy must be converted into something else (First law of Thermodynamics i believe).A number of things happen at this point, as kinetic energy is converted:The floor physically deforms (transfer of kinetic energy to ! the floor)Pieces of the glass spread horizontally on the floor (this is more of a "conservation" of kinetic energy than anything i guess)Glass vibratesPressure waves are formed by the vibrating shards of glass (thus the phenomenon of "noise" to the human ear)Light and heat are emitted too, but in such small amounts, it is insignificant in this instance.The key difference between the carpet and the tiled floor are their abilities to absorb energy, and at what rate. Tile does not absorb energy (through deformation) that well. On the other hand, carpet can quickly deform (and disperse energy, through internal friction). Thus, carpet seems to "absorb" sound, but really, the glass just makes less sound on impact because more kinetic energy is being transferred into the carpet and not into pressure waves.This may lead to answering your first question, which I have less schooling on, but would take a guess that the science behind sound reduction includes creating materials that ca! n absorb vibrations caused by impacts or other pressure waves.HOWEVER, ! there are other methods of sound reduction that approach the situation differently entirely by "canceling out" noise. This technology is often employed in high end headphones. See "Active Noise Control" on wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control...Show more

Jene Kostyla: It doesn't - that is why it is popular. It seems to be a morphed version of Creationism, but with a sprinkle of Darwin.

Marcia Cheathan: you need to clean the beaker first

Jarrod Darnall:

Solomon Belback: Their anus. They do have one you know.

Raymundo Kyser: Theory means it's someone's version of the truth, and often, the hypotheses work out alright. Theories can be rewritten, revisited, and retested over and over to make the num,bers work in the favor of the theorist. Intelligent Design however, is not a theory, because it is already the truth. It cannot be changed to suit the purpose of a particular interest. The Bible is 100% correct, 100% of the time. Just! because science hasn't figured it all out yet, doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. Think about it, for hundreds of years, science said the world was FLAT - even ostracized Galileo for saying that was wrong. But low and behold, the Bible has said the world is an "orb" and a "sphere" for at least the last 5,000 years. I know that I will get a lot of thumbs-down, but this is how I see it....Show more

Jed Porada: Scientific theories can be continuously tested and retested as new data comes to light.Intelligent design posits an unknown supernatural "designer." By definition, the supernatural cannot be tested. I'd have no problem with calling it a PHILOSOPHY, but it isn't scientific.

Javier Holsonback: Intelligent design is not a theory because it has no basis in fact. God is imaginary, a mythological entity invented by our primitive ancestors. Intelligent design is so far from reality it's not even wrong. It's socially acceptable insanity, nothing more........

!

Patrick Bitsui: In the loosest meaning of the word theory, as per co! mmon usage, I suppose you could call it a theory along with David Ike’s silly ideas that the Royal Family are really space lizards in disguise. Both though are equally daft and without evidence and should be dismissed out of hand. As a Scientific Theory it not only doesn’t get off the starting blocks, it doesn’t even make it to the racetrack. ID is just creationist rubbish repackage in a hope of taking in the gullible....Show more