First of all: What is "Intelligent Design"? This so-called theory or proposition is the belief 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."(Discovery Institute, 2007) Lets look at the source of this quote. The Discovery Institute is an organization that advertises itself as program that "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory". This definition would inherently imply that Intelligent Design is a fact, as it "supports scientists", and "improves schools", but yet there seem to be some disagreement among the "enlightened community". To quote Henry M. Morris (Ph. D.) of the Institute for Creation Research, which advocates for both Intelligent Design and Creationism, "(Intelligent Design) is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms." This would seem to suggest that Intelligent Design is merely Creationism (the basis of how the world was created, based on the beliefs of there being an omnipotent God), rephrased; These "scientists" are really men of good faith, who have replaced the word "God" in their arguments with the self-introduced phrase "Intelligent Agent". Is is, as proclaimed by countless supporters, a science that "proves" (mono)theism.
So sticking with the same belief that Judge Jones, representing the United Stated Supreme Court, had in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which is that Intelligent Design is Creationism, rephrased (or replaced) to become legal and constitutional to teach in school, the question changes to: Can Creationism be scientifically proven? The simple answer to this is, no!
Lets look at this "theory". It states that God, or an "Intelligent Agent" designed some forms of life on Earth, therefore filling in the gaps left by the theory of Darwinian Evolution. Now while Evolution is just a theory, and not fact, there is loads of evidence to back it up. Should it be taught as a fact? That's different argument, but I'd like to point out that the theories of Gravity, Friction, and the spherical nature of the Earth are not fact either, despite them being taught so in schools.
So what is the "proof" that these Creationists/Intelligent Designers propose? The fact that some things in nature are "irreducibly complex", or impossible to have formed on their own as they would be useless. The example they focus on is the "living motor" of the bacterial flagellum, but it has already been proven that parts of this could have developed for a completely unrelated purpose. As well, the lack of an explanation for one thing does not disprove the theory of Evolution,and by the same token one questionable fact does by no means prove Intelligent Design. Their other bit of "proof"? The fact that some aspects of life work so perfectly, "they look like a creation of an 'Intelligent Agency'". However, the foundation of Darwin's Evolution disproves this, as those "designed" elements could easily be the work of Natural Selection, whereby the most useful or beneficial traits and mutations are passed on through generations of a species, and the detrimental ones die out.
Of course, there's no way to prove 100% that Intelligent Design is not scientific fact, but with our current technology and methods of researching, I believe that, just as we assume the quantum-mechanic theory to be fact, we can also assume Intelligent Design cannot be proved as fact. As well, the fact that we can prove almost all aspects of life have evolved from earlier, less complex aspects should be proof enough.
While I could go on forever listing reasons why Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be proven through scientific fact, as there is no universal evidence, and the "facts" given can be scientifically disproved, I don't have that much time. To conclude: Evolution is a theory with many gaps, but much supporting evidence; to the contrary, Creationism (and therefore "Intelligent Design" has no scientific basis, is a product of religion, and as agreed upon by the US Supreme Court, not real science. So no, there is no way to scientifically prove the idea of "Intelligent Design".
While I could go on forever listing reasons why Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be proven through scientific fact, as there is no universal evidence, and the "facts" given can be scientifically disproved, I don't have that much time. To conclude: Evolution is a theory with many gaps, but much supporting evidence; to the contrary, Creationism (and therefore "Intelligent Design" has no scientific basis, is a product of religion, and as agreed upon by the US Supreme Court, not real science. So no, there is no way to scientifically prove the idea of "Intelligent Design".
