Intelligent design as a logical argument essentially states that was the universe was created by god and this can be known because of the complexity of the universe. Let’s look at how the logical argument would go in the form of a debate:
- The universe is complex or designed, it therefore requires a creator or designer
- Wouldn’t a creator of a complex universe be even more complex and therefore even more in need of a creator?
- No, god is less complex
- Then in that case, the universe can arise from a natural system without the need for the problem of complexity. Any complex god would then require a less complex god or naturally arising system to come into existence but such a system could then create the universe as well without the need for a god.
- Yes, god is more complex but he has always existed or time doesn’t apply to him.
- This is what scientists say about the universe . It’s called space time.
Hopefully I managed to get all the main points in there but I would be welcome to additions.
Intelligent design is often seen by theists as a scientific approach to theology but it relies on various unverifiable assertions thus meaning that it is not science.
For example, the argument commonly goes that the universe appears designed or is so complex that it therefore requires a designer. An argument against this position is the frame of reference used to define design. To claim that the universe is designed one would have to know what a universe that is not designed would look like to compare it to. Of course, anyone can make up their own vision of a universe lacking design which is I why I don’t favor this argument.
Also, intelligent design is not science because science must be testable and verifiable. Of course, it is refuted via a simple logical sanity check and has no need to progress to the level of scientific scrutiny, but intelligent design is not testable either and therefore not science.
If you look at how testable intelligent design is you see as set of assertions which are added upon to create a system which “proves” god. However, with no evidence shown, these assertions are unfounded and act as mere premises rather than verifiable fact. Creation scientists do a better job and creating a goal to twist evidence towards than they do for supplying evidence.
Intelligent design does not meet the scientific burden of proof or even present a valid scientific hypothesis (and that’s not even considering that many theists claim that their god is un-testable which makes intelligent design meaningless even as a scientific theory).
As you can see, intelligent design is not science in any way. Not only that but it has even failed logically. It is clear that it should not be taught in science classes as it is clearly not science. Don’t children deserve better than unfounded claims used to advance a religious agenda?