It seems clear to me that 'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific theory. In fact, I do think it even meets the qualifications for being a scientific hypothesis.

Remember a scientific theory is a validated hypothesis, and by definition it must be testable.

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

The proposition that reality is materialistically or physicalistically monist is also not a scientific claim or scientific hypothesis. The scientific method is very simple idea which focuses solely on using empirical data to validate testable, refutable hypotheses and theories and in no way does it imply that that which can not be scientifically refuted or scientifically proven is somehow not true or true.

Scientific study and results cannot refute superstitions, supernatural beliefs, religious beliefs or other untestable or non-empirical beliefs. For instance, one may believe that gravity exists because supernatural demons from some realm that cannot be empirically observed use their magical powers to bend spacetime around objects to make them closer together in correlation with the objects' mass. The belief in such demons is not a scientific theory or a scientific hypothesis. Science can give us a theory that lets us predict that objects will fall if let go from the top of a roof through the empirical observation of gravity in controlled experiments, but science has nothing to do with providing evidence for or against the existence of those magical demons that cannot be empirically observed.

I'm surprised people who hold a superstitious, supernatural or religious belief often seem to want to try to turn into pseudoscience rather than embrace the fact that it is something out of the narrow focus of science and narrow ability of science to potentially refute. If I held a religious/superstitious/supernatural belief, I would feel it to be mockery for that belief to be falsely treated as science.

Meleagar wrote:ID is an empirical, scientific fact, as humans employ it every day. It is of course a scientific theory.

What tests have been done on the ID "hypothesis" to make it a theory? Also, what is the ID "hypothesis" in your own words? What type of empirical data if found could refute this ID theory/hypothesis? Remember, testability and refutablilty are required elements of even just a scientific hypothesis.

I think Meleagar is right that evolution and intentional, intelligent design are compatible, not mutually exclusive.

For example, doesn't the Pope believe in evolution? And of course he believes in intelligent design? Doesn't he advise his followers to look at evolution as god's work?

Indeed, polls show that the majority of Catholics, the majority of Jews, the majority of mainline Protestants and the majority of Hindus all believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth (source). I think it's thus reasonable to conclude that those people believe evolution is part of the method by which the god(s) in which they believe created humans.

I am not convinced by any of the arguments I've read in this thread or elsewhere for intentional, intelligent design. By 'intentional, intelligent design," I mean the idea that the design is somehow done by a thing, namely a god or gods or other supernatural entity, whose intelligence exceeds and the potential for the sophistication in the created system exceeds what systems would be expected to naturally develop in a godless universe via the logically necessary process of natural selection which is greatly involved in the alleged fact of evolution. So I personally only believe in evolution. But evidence of evolution isn't necessarily evidence against the existence of some more conscious intelligent designer.

I don't think we even need Google to figure this out. Here are my calculations for the odds of getting at least 2 of a kind when rolling typical 6-sided dice:

2 dice - 1/6 - 16.67%
3 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) = 44.44%
4 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) = 72.22%
5 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) + 4/6 * (1 - .7222) = 90.74%
6 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) + 4/6 * (1 - .7222) + 5/6 * (1 - .9074) = 98.46%
7 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) + 4/6 * (1 - .7222) + 5/6 * (1 - .9074) + 6/6 * (1 - .9846) = 100%

If I made any mistakes in my calculations please let me know. I can explain these numbers to anyone who has questions. But I tried to make them easy to follow without using variables by simply adding the odds that the last die matches on of the other dies if there is not already a match each time we add a die.

When we look at it more closely, it seems quite obvious that among 5 dice you would have more than a 5/6 (which is 83%) chance of getting a double, since the other fallacious calculation would mean when you roll 6 dice you would have a 6/6 or 100% chance of getting a double which is ludicrous since you could roll one of each and would imply that when you roll 7 dice you have a 7/6 chance of getting a double which doesn't even make sense since it is over 100%. It seems people are fallaciously mixing up the average statistics of a specific roll/match (e.g. what are the odds of rolling a three) versus the odds of getting any match. Obviously, the latter is more likely than the former. Obviously, it is more likely to get at least either two ones, two twos, two threes, two fours, two fives or two sixes than to specifically get two sixes.

Yes, I was agreeing with you Prismatic. In fact, I think you are so clearly right about this that I don't think one needs to search Google to see it.

In regards to the topic at hand, of course these kind of seeming coincidences can not be seen as evidence of intelligent design or divine intervention. Moreover, many of the things unscientifically attributed to intelligent design are not even seeming coincidences on the level of 2 kids in a class of 23 having the same birthday but are the completely expected result of non-biological evolution and natural selection. It's not really even a coincidence that humans breathe air and fish don't, nor is it much of a coincidence that the remaining planet's orbits are relatively stable. It's less a coincidence even then the students having the same birthday.