Your result for The Evolution versus Design Test...
Intelligent Design
You are 59% scientific!
You support the Intelligent Design movement. Essentially, you believe that evolution occurs on a small-scale (adaptation or micro-evolution), but that it cannot account for certain complex structures--which therefore necessitates that these structures were designed by a being with intelligence. In all likelihood, your knowledge of scientific methodology is highly lacking, most notably because the "theory" of intelligent design isn't even remotely scientific. You seem to think that merely pointing out perceived "holes" in evolution proves that biological structures are the result of intelligent design. However, attempting to falsify evolution would not validate design, anymore than falsifying the theory of gravity would validate the theory of magical fairies that cause things not to float into the air. Of course, the people who support the Intelligent Design movement can't adequately provide evidence in favor of their theory because it's predicted observations are simply too broad. Unlike evolution, Intelligent Design would not specify any specific observations we could expect to find in biological systems. Where evolution predicts vestigial structures, bodily and genetic similarities, and an evolutionary progression in the fossil record, Intelligent Design would account for virtually any biological observation, because it does not make any specific predictions and thus isn't falsifiable. It can't be tested because any observation would fit the framework. It is important to realize that the mere explanation of facts is not enough for a scientific theory. It also has to take predictive risks and set itself up for being potentially falsified. Is there an observation we could make that would "prove" it must not have been designed by an intelligent power? Not really. An intelligent power could feasibly design anything we perceive, including things that do not appear complex or purposeful at all. Because there is no way to falsify the theory, there is no way to test it.
As a result of this, the Intelligent Design movement relies on a lot of misinformation about evolution in order to defeat it. They may emphasize that evolution is only a "theory", trying to imply that it isn't justified by any evidence, when in a scientific context the word "theory" implicitly implies that the idea has much evidence on its side and contains multitudes of facts that fit its framework. They also tend to point out areas that evolution has not been fully explained at the moment, saying this is evidence for design. However, every scientific theory has unexplained areas, and we can't expect theories to fill every hole. This is a reflection of our epistemic limitations as human beings, not a reflection of the validity of evolution! The fact that evolution does not explain everything is not a criticism, nor does this wipe away the wide array of facts it DOES explain. Furthermore, an unexplained observation is not a falsification of the theory. Potentially, an unexplained phenomenon could one day be shown to falsify the theory--but merely pointing out our ignorance of the explanation does not falsify anything. It is just as possible that it could fit the framework.
As a supporter of the Intelligent Design movement, you should definitely study scientific methodology to learn why your position is not even remotely scientific. On a philosophical level, as well, your position is highly untenable. The teleological argument (which is what Intelligent Design is based upon) runs thus:
1. Complex, purposeful structures show evidence of intelligent design.
2. Biological structures are complex and purposeful.
3. Therefore, biological structures were intelligently designed.
Now, the argument does indeed follow, but what of the designer? Is not the designer complex and purposeful? The designer of such structures would necessarily be complex and purposeful. Therefore, following the premises of the argument:
1. Complex and purposeful things were intelligently designed.
2. The designer implied by the teleological argument is complex and purposeful.
3. Therefore, the designer was intelligently designed.
This creates an infinite regress of designers. The regress cannot be stopped unless one denies the very premises of the argument. Therefore, the idea is incompatible with monotheism, and anyone who thinks it justifies an inference of a single all-powerful God is fooling himself.
In short, Intelligent Design is neither scientifically nor philosophically tenable. It makes no specific predictions and relies wholly on criticizing the "holes" in evolution--despite the fact that all theories have "holes" in knowledge and these gaps do not falsify the theory, nor do these gaps wipe away the abundant evidence in favor of evolution. I highly recommend that you read about all the evidence in favor of evolution. When you realize how many facts in all kinds of different biological fields fit the evolutionary framework, you will realize how truly magnificent and wonderful the theory really is.
However, you can find solace in the fact that you are not a creationist. Your arguments are a little more intelligent, sophisticated, and cunning than the average creationist, even though they are, in the long run, just as flawed.
If you feel that gaps in the fossil record or the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution, please click here, as these arguments are addressed and assessed there and shown to be lacking.
***
The other possible categories:
Creationism / Social Darwinism / Evolution
In case you're interested, and you're probably not, you may want to check out my blog for more assaults on religious silliness and defenses of science and right thinking. Here it is, silly gooses: Saint Gasoline
(And yes, I know that the plural of goose is geese. I just like to bleep the system.)
Take The Evolution versus Design Test at HelloQuizzy
I REALIZE that faith can't be proven. But it's representatives can possess knowledge. Therefore, Faith is half scientific!
