Are there any comprehensive scientific studies of ID?

Are there any serious multi-disciplinary studies taking place currently studying whether there is evidence of intelligent design not just in biology but physics,biochemistry, etc.?In other words, a comprehensive proposed theory bringing together evidence of intelligent design in multiple scientific disciplines at once, instead of one design model for biology, another for physics, another for creation itself and so on.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweaked topic title from "Comprehensive scientific study of ID?" to "Are there any comprehensive scientific studies of ID?".

I sense that this is quickly going to turn into a disaster area topic, but I'm going to promote it anyway.Adminnemooseus

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

No. But creo the world over are relentlessly scanning every other serious study for phrases to take out of context and definitions to misapply. And don't you doubt they'll be impressed.Edited by lyx2no, : double type

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Well, that's discouraging. I'll hold out hope that someone has at least heard of a unifying theory of ID.Unfortunately, I have no background in science apart from what I've seen on Discovery and Star Trek to help me try to come up with a defensible ID interpretation on my own. I was hoping that since this site has so many real scientists as well as creationists that someone would have come across an interesting theory tying together various ID theories into one "grand theory".It seems like as a theory ID needs to address evidence of design in physics as well as biology, in the quantum world as well as the visible ,since the designer would have had his hands in ALL of creation.Are there are any physicists out there who believe in ID? Or is ID as a movement just concentrated on biology? If so, I don't see how ID can expect to stand as a scientific theory without trying to explain all of creation, meaning all the sciences,and not just certain parts.

There aren't even serious studies on ID in biology. The ID movement is more focussed on influencing education in high schools, and is currently far more interested in complaining about (almost entirely imaginary) "persecution" than in doing actual science.

Ok, well, I'm still holding out hope that there are ID proponents(not young earth creationists or fundamentalists) on this site that have some scientific reasoning behind their belief.I actually do believe in God as creator of all,but I can't pretend to be able to prove that scientifically. That said, I don't attach limitations on how or why the universe is as it is.As a newbie on this site, and a non-scientist, I was hoping to find others who believed in a designer for reasons other than faith or personal spiritual experience.If I get no responses, I guess I'll have to accept that ID is not something being seriously considered as an explanatory tool, at least not at this point.

helenavm writes:

quote:

---

In other words, a comprehensive proposed theory bringing together evidence of intelligent design in multiple scientific disciplines at once, instead of one design model for biology, another for physics, another for creation itself and so on.

---

The same methodology that results in the claim of "god did it" for biology also has the same claim with regard to physics.Specifically, they call it "intelligent design" for biology but it's "fine tuning" for physics. The claim is that there is no way for the various fundamental forces of the universe (charge on the electron, constant of universal gravitation, etc.) to possibly have arisen naturally and still have a functional universe, therefore they must have been designed.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain
quote: I understand that that is what is said about ID. I just wanted to see if any of the ID proponents on this site, which seems to be full of people way more educated than I, had any innovative ways of explaining multiple disciplines through ID, or had any links or names of works that might address this.I will look into the "fine tuning" you mentioned. Thanks for your response.

It would be hasty to draw such conclusions from a short experience at a single website. Plus the mix of active participants is in constant flux - at different times you'll get people with different opinions responding.--Percy

I think Percy makes a good point that just failing to get an answer on this one site shouldn't be sufficient for you to dismiss something. There are a number of pro-ID sites you could try, such as ISCID's Brainstorms forum or the Intelligent design forums at 'Evolution is Dead'.I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to present you a unified theory however.TTFN,WK

Not to nitpick, but don't you have to have a theory before you can have a unified theory? A scientific theory is more than just a concept, an idea: to be a scientific theory it needs to be based on observations, evidence, and form an explanatory model for the observations and evidence, and then (gasp) it needs to be tested and falsifiable. The test needs to something that is true if the theory is correct but false if it isn't.I'd be happy to see a list of such theories based on ID. Do you know of any?What you are asking is whether anyone has considered the ID concept on its own merits instead of as a political gambit, a pawn to make religion possible in school science courses. This gets into the question of is ID properly pursued?Maybe this enters the realm of philosophy more than science.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Certainly you should look elsewhere but I've found no sign of any attempt to produce a real theory of intelligent design. A real theory would have to be based around the capabilities and intentions of the proposed designer. ID proponents generally try to avoid talking about the designer. Instead ID arguments usually proceed by attacking evolution and presuming design as the only alternative. That is how Behe's arguments work. It is how Dembski's Design Inference is meant to work - if it could be applied practically, to evolution, which nobody has managed to do.And if you consider what the ID movement really is about, it isn't surprising. The vast majority of ID supporters assume that the designer is God. But admitting that would be very inconvenient to them. Firstly it calls into question the whole idea that ID is science - producing a major problem for getting ID into schools.. Secondly it isn't easy to defend - many "designs" aren't the sort of thing most people would expect from God. Bad designs, designs to inflict pain and suffering. And how can you turn God into science ?The other problem is that ID was always intended as an alliance of different views. Behe accepts an old Earth and common descent, just invoking God to help evolution past the difficult bits. Others are Old Earth Creationists who reject common descent. And while most of the leaders seem to be OECs, there are YECs in and supporting the ID movement. The ID movement refuses to even take an official position on the age of the Earth. So how can they possibly agree even on what their theory (if they had one) was meant to explain.

No, I haven't come across any truly objective, credible material in this vein,that's why I was checking this site out in the first place. The issue is seeming more and more to me like a purely political issue the more I delve into it. That in itself fascinates me, and draws me to study it further.In trying to look for objective scientific research concerning ID, I may well be looking for something that doesn't exist(yet?), yet I will keep looking. Hopefully I can "vet" some of what I come across on this site.I read your essay, it pretty much summed up the problems I have with ID. I will recommend it to others I know with interest in the topic. Thanks for your response.

The ID movement is more focussed on influencing education in high schools...

So there should be a curriculum developed and ready to teach, right?I have never seen one, nor a good reference to one.I would suspect that developing a curriculum, like putting together a substantial ID hypothesis in hopes of it becoming a theory, would be difficult without mentioning religious belief or god.I think that is why almost all of ID concentrates on nitpicking the theory of evolution rather than promoting ID. There simply is nothing to ID outside of religious belief, but they can't admit that or their cover is blown.