One of the biggest challenges to science in recent history has to be the attempt of ethereal addicts to blur the lines between science and fantasy. Many faith-advocates are now incorporating a great deal of scientific nomenclature and techniques, and applying them in seemingly logical fashion toward increasing the credibility of there being an intelligent creator to the universe. Let's see how well Intelligent Design fares in the Scientific Method.

Hypothesis: I theorize that the universe and everything in it may have been intelligently designed

Our hypothesis appears to be acceptable in that it doesn't make any unsupported assumptions that do not extend from what is currently supported by the Scientific Method (we're fairly certain the universe exists, and that it contains stuff). So now that we have a qualifying hypothesis, we need to accumulate evidence to determine the validity of it.

Color Table:

Strong counter-evidence	Weak counter-evidence	Not useful	Weak evidence	Good evidence	Strong evidence	Not applicable

First-hand Evidence
Type of Evidence	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Tangibility We have no way to determine the nature of said intelligence, nor do we see any sign of blueprints, tools, or other direct indications that there was a 'construction' phase to our universe. Seems whoever did this, didn't leave a trace.	..a sign that the intelligence operates beyond the capacity of humans to understand.	..unfortunate. Would be strong support if we had some physical evidence of this intelligence.
Influence There are some seemingly improbable observations that suggest an intelligence could be responsible for it. For example, the delicate balance of the Earth's ecosystem, with trillions of parameters all in fine-tuned balance. Also, many biological indicators that are so unbelievably complicated that it seems impossible that evolution could account for their complexity.	..indisputable evidence. Too much luck for it all to have happened by accident. It was definitely an intelligence that put everything together.	..compelling, but the gigantic blind leap needed to go from 'where did these complex structures come from?' to 'it must be an intelligence' is much too far of an extrapolation without further evidence.
Interpretation Because of the complexity of life and the universe in general, an intelligent designer must have put everything together.	..the obvious answer. Nothing else fits the observations better than an intelligent designer.	..a hasty conclusion. There doesn't seem to be anything concrete suggesting that complexity 'must' equal design, despite that design can produce complexity. More data is needed.
Intuition Look around you. The work of the masterful intelligence is everywhere. Do you think it's just 'luck' that the Earth's environment 'perfectly' matches the human biology? Do you think something so complex as bacterial flagellum could evolve in one giant step? Do you think it lucky that sunlight just happens to perfectly match the most sensitive spectrum of our eyes? Only an intelligence could assemble something so complex and delicate as the universe.	..the obvious answer. Even science itself says how complicated everything is, so even science supports an intelligent designer.	..a hasty conclusion, especially in the face of the much more scientifically-sound alternative theory, 'evolution'. Evolution theory is deceptively more complicated than it may appear, but when one has a formidable education in both evolution and statistical mathematics, it becomes easily understandable how evolution can overcome seemingly impossible odds. Even if we put evolution aside, what about other just as valid alternatives, such as 'aliens' creating humanity as a future food source for them, or perhaps it was Zeus on Mount Olympus that started everything? Why are these equally viable solutions considered ridiculous to Intelligent Design advocates, and yet a god makes perfect sense?
Desire If there actually is an intelligent creator, then it seems very likely that it is this God entity that everyone has believed in for all of history, and therefore it's probably likely we'll go to heaven and live forever!!	..quite logical and deductive. We finally have the meshing of both science and religion so both can co-exist in harmony.	..strongly discrediting. This is the ulterior agenda of all those that purport Intelligent Design theory.

Second-Hand Information Credibility
Type of Information	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Distinguished Source None. There isn't any formal resource that has implemented the Scientific Method to attempt to substantiate Intelligent Design, however, the majority of reputable scientists are abhorred by the notions of Intelligent Design and consider it to be a huge agenda-driven blasphemy of science, and a thin smoke-screen for faith.	..a shortcoming that will eventually be rectified. You watch.	..strong counter-evidence.
Agenda Source Religious doctrine notwithstanding, there have also been many books written about Intelligent Design, some even by very established scientific and mathematical minds.	..very compelling. See, even some scientists believe in Intelligent Design.	..of low credibility because of the underlying motivation of those sources to try to promote their ethereal beliefs. The fact that a rare few scientists and mathematicians may be involved in this effort doesn't necessarily mean those scientists have applied their science skills toward the verification of Intelligent Design theory using the Scientific Method. It doesn't matter what a scientist says unless they use the Scientific Method to back it up.
Mass Support Picking up large support very quickly. Seems this adoption of science blended with faith is a winner!	..very compelling. You can't argue with all those people, can you?	..irrelevant. Even if everyone believed in Intelligent Design theory, it still wouldn't provide scientific support to its validity.
Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion My neighbor was the first person to ever tell me about Intelligent Design. Sounded pretty interesting at the time.	..somewhat credible. Still, because it attempts to borrow from science, Intelligent Design becomes quite complicated quickly. Have to think about it.	..inconsequential.

The instincts are wholeheartedly supportive of Intelligent Design theory for one reason alone: immortality. No matter what an Intelligent Design advocate would have us believe is the reason for their undying support of this theory, it all boils down to the need for their God to be real, so they can live forever. The simple test to prove their motivations is to question how they can justify absolutely rejecting all equally valid alternate theories (aliens, Zeus, etc.), and yet strongly endorse their 'God' answer, which has no more merit whatsoever than any of the alternatives. The Scientific Method however, profoundly rejects the possibility of Intelligent Design being valid, citing a strong agenda-driven source, and virtually no evidence other than the misguided assumption that complexity must equal design, which can be easily disproved with computer simulations of 'order' from 'chaos'. It seems that education is the missing link needed in order for Intelligent Design advocates to be able to dismiss this theory.

Instinctual Conclusion

Science has proven there is a God.

Scientific Method Conclusion

Blind faith in a fancy new jacket.

© BetterHuman.org