Its back mostly the reason that I take so long doing these, is that it is so tedious in the first place to read this rubbish and then rebut it. Anyway this time around the question is "Is intelligent design a testable scientific theory". So before you run away from boredom as you know the answer lets start.
Straight away it starts badly, where the author gives the definition of intelligent design as:
In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone.
But we know this is wrong as the Discovery Institute the bastion of intelligent design defines ID as:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Then the article actually gets good by showing why ID is not accepted and why we need to have a testable hypothesis. Until, the author starts saying that intelligent design is used in fields like forensics, archaeology, anthropology and SETI. Now this is correct, but also misleading as the creator of these finding is using scientific evidence for their claims. More importantly the creator of these findings is a real person that we can touch, or if they are passed away we have birth records or documents which show they were real in the first place. And later on when the author says that ID theory has "eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design." this is also very misleading, as it was science and understanding of probability that determined this.
The author then goes on to point out the model for ID and shows it should have the following points:
1) The intelligent Designer is identified
2) The model is detailed
3) The model can be refined
4) The model is testable and falsifiable
5) The model can make predictions
The author also then goes on to say the God of the bible is the Intelligent Designer and there is less variability on the Y chromosome than in the mitochondrial DNA, which can be explained using biblical texts. Except for the fact that the mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother to all males and females. While the Y chromosome can only be inherited in males from males. So how can one compare this genetic variation? Would it not be better to quantify the X versus the Y chromosome? Also the mitochondria have been around longer than the Y chromosome if you believe in the science that has been proven over and over again in the little subject called evolution.
Then we get into some more predictions or should I say we get told what science is telling us. Below is a list of 8 things that science is telling us according to the author.
Science tells us that:
1) There is no evidence for more than one universe or more than one creation event.
The author made a giant leap to show that Science will prove that the universe only had one beginning, which automatically means ID is true. NO, it does not mean that, but also this is a lie as I have pointed out before.
2) Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10exp120.
This fine tuning argument is ridiculous. As why do we have to be carbon based? Why do we have to breathe oxygen? As humans we do, but what about a life form that is silicon based, will their parameters be the same?
3) Rocky planets matching the general characteristics of planet earth have been few. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars. Rocky planets orbiting red dwarfs or stars larger than our Sun are not candidates for life since they suffer from tidal locking and insufficient short wavelength light to support photosynthesis (small stars) or have short stellar lifetimes (less than one billion years for larger stars).
This is turning out not to be true either.
4) No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
True. But who says that other life forms (if they exist) a) want to communicate with us b) are as advanced as us or c) are pointing their telescopes/transmitters in the right direction.
5) It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for origin of any living system.
Rubbish as a chemist I find this insulting. I have dealt with this before in a related post, but the fact is that the basic molecules for life can very easily be produced.
6) Naturalistic synthesis of either biochemical nor replicative pathways have not been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
Again see the point above about the chemical origins of life or the link below
Also if you want you could read a review article on simple self replicating chemicals which was published in 2004.
7) Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
Their are multiple transition species, it is just that ID proponents refuse to accept the evidence. The god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance and/or dishonesty.
8) Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.
I think the author is misinterpreting the data here again, as it is a lot more complex than that.
Or if the author is talking about the Cambrian explosion, they are ignoring the other extinction events. This is called fitting the data to your outcomes and is dishonest. Also the Cambrian explosion was not tens of thousands of years it was more like 30 million years.
Okay enough for one day. If you want to read more about this crazy site follow the link below.