This is the fourth in a five-part series comparing the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, EverythingIsHistory.com has invited writer Tomo Albanese to share his experience of discussing the origins of man with a lawyer from the Discovery Institute, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design. If you haven't read the other articles, here are the links to the first 3 parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Intelligent Design Apologetics: 3 Gaping Holes in the foundation of ID "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin It is with some amusement and yet altogether appropriate that I point out how the method of science is quite Darwinian in its approach to knowledge. The scientific method is a specific yet dynamic process of verifying specific claims. As we have looked at Intelligent Design this week, it has been through the lens of science. Upon close inspection we have discovered that the foundation of Intelligent Design is cracked and shaky, and today we will continue the process of condemning the house of cards known as Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is not falsifiable

Let's start things off right by pointing out why Intelligent Design is NOT science. Scientific claims are testable and falsifiable; however this is not the case with ID. As we discussed yesterday, it is impossible to demonstrate that a particular biological object is "irreducibly complex" for a number of factors.

1. The reduced structure will then be touted as "irreducibly complex"
2. The term is arbitrary and contingent upon the parameters of the investigator
3. Does not account for the possibility that such structures can be created by evolutionary processes.

With it not being possible to falsify this tenet, and this tenet being the "irreducibly complex and specific" structure of Intelligent Design, it's easy to see why ID is not considered science.

Intelligent design has not been supported by multiple studies in multiple fields

The next notion that is so important is that science progresses through the accumulation of multiple confirming instances obtained under a wide variety of circumstances and conditions. Scientific theories like evolution are supported by multiple lines of independently corroborative data. We'll get into the details later, but the findings of nearly every field of science for the past 150 years have verified the predictions of evolution. Intelligent Design on the other hand has NOT been verified by any studies, in fact, according to Time Magazine even Michael Behe admits, "You can't prove intelligent design by an experiment."  This might be in part due to the nature of the claims. The claims themselves are not very specific, just see the difference. You can figure out which one belongs to ID and which one doesn't on your own, right?

1. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
2. There will be no replication of specific gene patterns in unrelated organisms.

See how number 2 is VERY specific? It only takes on replicated gene pattern in an unrelated organism to falsify this statement. On the other hand, the first statement doesn't take into account anomalies, outliers, or gaps in our knowledge which could account for such findings.

Arguments against Evolution are NOT arguments for Intelligent Design

This last point isn't really the last, there are many flaws and holes, but this is the one that bothers most lovers of science and discovery. Intelligent Design has positioned itself as an anti-evolution argument. In any discussion that you have about Intelligent Design, you can be sure that some point against evolution will be made which has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

It may not seem obvious, but this is an extremely clever tactic for ID proponents to take. Rather than demonstrating why Intelligent Design is true, ID'ers simply attack evolution. Of course, this in no way works as a validation of the claims of Intelligent Design. Why? Even should evolution be proved completely false along with everything else that we know about biology, this would not make Intelligent Design true.

This is a trap that proponents of Intelligent Design set, and it has no place in a discussion about Intelligent Design. If a theory cannot rely on evidence which supports it but must instead rely on the falsification of an unrelated theory, than that claim is unsupported and poorly constructed.

We have gone over a number of the problems with arguments for Intelligent Design, but there are many more. In fact, the concept of Intelligent Design is riddled with so many problems, that no one article is up to the task of addressing them. I've included a few bullets below, but this won't be what we discuss tomorrow. Tomorrow we are going to discuss evolution and why this theory has withstood the test of time while theories like ID can't begin.