What is a hypothesis according to Intelligent Design Creationism?

One of our more enthusiastic supporters of IDC describes what he sees as an important prediction of the hypothesis that features of life were “designed” by a “mind”:

If this an example of what constitutes a “hypothesis” according to IDC? If so, then it would suggest that proponents of IDC are not engaged in science at all, but some other discipline of their own making, since by no stretch of the imagination could those be considered examples of hypotheses or predictions as used in science.


Your personal assertion is not very interesting.

All you’ve ever offered anywhere are your unsupported personal assertions Bill. How many people have you convinced with that approach?

Exactly. It is another way of saying that there is no possible observation that would falsify IDC. They wait until the observations have been made, and then claim it supports IDC for whatever reason they dream up, many of which are contradictory. They also ignore the simple concept of parsimony:


Can you give an example of a scientific hypothesis that has been formulated in this manner in terms of suggesting what prediction it would make to confirm whether it is correct? e.g.

“The hypothesis is that the data will confirm general relativity.”

“The prediction is that the evidence will ultimately show that what we are observing is the product of evolution.”

Just from what is written there, does that give sufficient information for someone wishing to scientifically test those hypotheses? If so, give an example of the experiment you would devise based on that information.

Is there such a thing as an apologetics hypothesis?

A scientific hypothesis is always tentative. In my experience, creationists always seem certain of what they say. I doubt that they are capable of being tentative.

There is the IDC method which starts with the conclusion and works backwards.


The closest thing to a working definition of “Intelligent Design” as a science comes from Dr. Behe himself!

He did some narrative “circling around” and concluded with what I will paraphrase here as:

The science of Intelligent Design is based on natural processes that are so improbable it is unreasonable to think they didn’t occur because of rational intention.

@T_aquaticus, I don’t think this passes the sniff test at all for science… but I’m pretty sure this is what most of the I.D. people THINK they mean.

That’s actually not that dissimilar to what @colewd is suggestion. Einstein, for example, could have worded his theory as “The science of General Relativity is based on processes that are so improbable that it is unreasonable to think they did not occur because of gravity as understood by the theory of General Relativity.” Neither statement really suggests that there is positive evidence to support the hypothesis, never mind what that evidence might be. If that was how Einstein had formulated his theory, he would have gotten nowhere. Which may explain why ID has gotten nowhere as a scientific idea.

It does suggest, however, that Bill is accurately representing the IDC position, and is not just some rogue element misrepresenting the ideology of the movement.

1 Like

I could easily misrepresent the theory here. Certainly others misrepresent it. It does however work very similar to Einsteins theory of GR as it proposed a mechanistic explanation to what we are observing. The difference is as @Rumraket points out you cannot create a mathematical model at least at this point how a mind will deterministically behave.

Evolutionary theory has the same challenge as you cannot predict how RMNS or neutral plus drift will deterministically behave.

This is why IDC is not scientific. However, IDC can be eliminated through parsimony when observations are found to be consistent with evolution.

Here are 29+ predictions of how evolution will behave:


1 Like

And GR made specific predictions e.g. regarding the orbital path of Mercury around the sun.

IDC makes no such predictions. That’s why you are reduced to offering non-responses that amount to saying “ID predicts predictions that ID would make.” Seriously.

And GR does not allow us to predict which balls will be drawn in the next Powerball lottery. So I guess that means you reject it, too, right?

Heh. Bill admits his IDC “hypothesis” was worthless, goes for the “I Know I am But What Are You” defense. :smile:

1 Like

The problem you have is ID is closer to making predictions than evolution is. Ewert (design) predicts a dependency graph and evolution predicts a tree the data appears to be following Ewert’s prediction more closely as genes are not following the tree pattern.


I really wish you wouldn’t so stubbornly persist in “savaging” the definitions of science. What do I mean?

You could just as easily argue that because there is an APPROXIMATION one makes in understanding multi-step chemical reactions (see the link to “Reaction Progress Kinetic Analysis” known in Chemistry) that Chemistry is not a real science either… or that we can’t be sure which molecule will undergo the first reaction, in order for a second or third reaction to occur!


Behe’s assessment of probabilities is the ONLY criterion that decides whether God does it or not. But if we were to apply this same standard to Chemistry … then God would be in charge of the first equations, and then natural law kicks in.

Epistemologically… I.D. is a failure.

ID has yet to make a single prediction based on ID tenets. ID only makes postdictions then falsely claims “ID predicted that” but can never say why.

Ewert (design) predicts a dependency graph and evolution predicts a tree the data appears to be following Ewert’s prediction more closely as genes are not following the tree pattern.

That is 100% false as Ewert only got his pattern by cherry-picking and manipulating data. Much was based on simple incorrect entries in the protein database. Bill of course was shown this many times over but ignored the evidence as always.

1 Like

…as well as scientifically and logically. About as complete a failure as anything humans dreamed up.

1 Like


I can’t disagree.

But I truly believe that if I.D. could pass muster epistemologically, it would probably be able to proceed all the way to testable science. The hurdle it can’t make is an epistemological one.

The issue is if we can ascribe a solution based on the four forces which chemistry is then the design argument is falsified as a direct cause. My personal prediction is that all science will hit the ID wall as science really struggles explaining any origin such as life and matter.

For now just think of ID as an acid test for science. We can test a hypothesis against random cause and design vs just a random cause. By removing design as an acid test biology has written a ton of useless papers.

By that criteria ID-Creation as a direct cause has already been falsified.

More sour grapes by someone who backed a scientifically worthless political cause.