Evidence for God from Science

If Intelligent Design is to be taken seriously a proper scientific theory needs to be produced. Can somebody point me in the direction of a proper Scientific THEORY, for Intelligent Design, that is testable? And I don't mean a concise "story", such as Of Pandas And People.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm

He has several books running around as well.

ashkal wrote:If Intelligent Design is to be taken seriously a proper scientific theory needs to be produced. Can somebody point me in the direction of a proper Scientific THEORY, for Intelligent Design, that is testable? And I don't mean a concise "story", such as Of Pandas And People.

If what you are saying is there is no scientific model, even many ID proponents will admit there is none.

As for Dover, PA board of education introducing ID into the science curriculum (which I detect is behind your statement of Pandas and People), this is not a move by mainstream ID advocates. For example, the Discovery Institute were deeply opposed to what happened there, and even requested the board policy be revoked. They do not want ID introduced into the science education curriculum because it has not matured significantly as a science. They have only been pushing to teach the problems both for and against Darwinian evolution. And they currently only want ID discussed in the higher levels of academia, not within education until it has been more developed.

Yet, it seems obvious you have some trying to use ID as a tool to push their own Creationism motives within Science. Such people are going to do a great deal of damage to ID, and such people are completely outside the mainstream ID movement. Right now ID isn't an alternative to evolution, for as you say no proper scientific theory has been proposed. It is more of a tool, and ID needs to mature first before one ever thinks about it being an option to Darwinian evolution. Creationism is however an alternative, and thus if anyone says ID is an alternative it would seem to me they are confusing ID for Creationism. Clearly Creationism is based more on religious Scripture than Science, and so as such belongs in Theology. ID on the otherhand is not Creationism, and currently cannot be considered an alternative since no scientific models have been put forward.

Kurieuo