That is a weak, overused, and frankly untrue statement. Defend your stance instead of misrepresenting a theory. I don't hold to ID because it is not compelling enough, but evolutionists say that about every alternative to their theory.
That is a weak, overused, and frankly untrue statement. Defend your stance instead of misrepresenting a theory. I don't hold to ID because it is not compelling enough, but evolutionists say that about every alternative to their theory.
Go back and read what the article states:
''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] stated.You need to show how CS/ID etc. are testable by science to be doing science. Otherwise, its your religion and belief against someone else's religion and belief, because you are not doing science.
Intelligent Design is trying to prove a negative (that certain features COULD NOT evolve naturally). That, in itself, disqualifies it. How does one test for this? You cannot. It is therefore not a science.
Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator
Can even remotely be called a scientific theory. At most, it's a poor hypothesis that fails testing by any scientific criteria.