If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory...

[Revoltingest]

One of the problems with the word evidence is that its most generic definition is simply "that which convinces someone of something".
So without the conditional modifier of "scientific" in front of the word evidence, pretty much anything could be evidence...

Given the laymen definition and the scientific definition are almost polar opposites, the word "theory" also causes much confusion.

I like my evidence to take the form of verified predictions.
What does ID predict? We could test that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One of the problems with the word evidence is that its most generic definition is simply "that which convinces someone of something".
So without the conditional modifier of "scientific" in front of the word evidence, pretty much anything could be evidence...

Given the laymen definition and the scientific definition are almost polar opposites, the word "theory" also causes much confusion.

I tend to think, though, that at Latin origin "evidence " means "out of seeing." (Ex Videre). Now, there are those who will argue that what is "seen" in the "mind's eye" counts, but then, that would be proof of unicorns, Ents, Harry Potter and Prospero's spirit, Ariel.

 

[McBell]

I tend to think, though, that at Latin origin "evidence " means "out of seeing." (Ex Videre). Now, there are those who will argue that what is "seen" in the "mind's eye" counts, but then, that would be proof of unicorns, Ents, Harry Potter and Prospero's spirit, Ariel.

I am merely pointing out that the word evidence, without conditional modifiers, is anything that convinces someone of something.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am merely pointing out that the word evidence, without conditional modifiers, is anything that convinces someone of something.

Sorry, I should have said that I agree. It's just that I have such a bromance with words and language. I have a very unfortunate tendency to be extremely precise in what I write, and in the words that I choose (and I have an absolute fetish for Shakespeare...don't get me started or you'll never hear the end ) -- and I make the dumb mistake of assuming others use language as I do.

What's worse, I prove my own stupidity by not seeming able to learn, after years of writing, that they don't!

 

[David T]

The real point of any science is to try to find rational ways to explain what we see and experience. Gravity helps explain why we don't fly off this spinning ball, but then it also (almost magically) explains why and how planets orbit stars and satellites orbit planets and a whole lot of other things (including our sense of balance).

The Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory, attempts to explain our trillions of actual observations of what life is, what forms there are, how they are related, what forms there were (i.e. exist as fossils only, with no living examples), and how all this happens. It also tries to explain why the fossils of life forms past appear only separately in the geological strata -- the "written history" of the earth itself.

For most (actually, nearly all) people in the sciences, ToE does this with absolutely stunning accuracy. That makes it -- for them at least -- kind of compelling.

So, let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that ToE is wrong and Intelligent Design is the correct "scientific theory." Well, how might we examine that? We could, of course, do what science always does, and ask, "how does ID explain those things that we observe?"

So, let's propose some questions to see how well it might do that -- and alternately, whether it might not do it very well. I'll post some, and encourage others to think of more in this thread -- but most of all, I'm hoping that the supporters of ID, instead of saying "ToE is impossible" (which is what we always get), instead try to live up to their own belief in their theory, and actually try to answer the questions asked.

I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:

1. There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.
2. Somebody, earlier in this thread, said something like "if ToE is true, then we would have an appendix or wisdom teeth." Apparently this means he thinks that those are artefacts mandated by the Intelligent Designer. There are many other things that are sub-optimal about our design(eyesight and blind spot, dangers of giving birth to a large-brained baby, etc.), and yet an Intelligent Designer should not be expected to choose bad designs, and a perfect designer should select only optimal designs. This is clearly not the case with the human body. Blind selection by ToE would be expected to produce frequently optimized designs, but hardly ever optimal ones -- which is exactly what we see. So, how does ID explain why we are as we are?
3. The question of why the evidence of life that has existed is so stratified cannot be ignored. Layers happen in chronological order, and nobody gets to insert one geological layer underneath another one crust of the earth. And the fossils found in those layers -- all over the earth -- show a clear progression of species. So, if ID is true, we need an explanation for why the Designer tried so very hard to fool us. ToE, of course, provides a perfectly rational explanation, but does ID?

I will have more questions as the thread progresses -- I hope others will, too!

Intelligent design is neither science not religion why the heck is it?

 

[Deeje]

I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:

1. There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.

So, are you saying that evolution can explain all this suffering but ID cannot?

Why do you assume that this is the way the Creator intended life to be? The Bible is clear that is is NOT the way the Creator designed life to be lived. Don't we all feel that?
What if the whole world has been taken over by a powerful and evil entity and it is this one who has introduced suffering and death to humanity? What if we are genetically altered by the experience and so now we have to endure the consequences of that alteration? (birth defects, disease, mistaken actions that end in death etc...)
That is the base meaning of "sin"...it is an archery term meaning to "miss the mark" and no one can suggest that we are not all victims of various flaws. All of the problems and conflicts in our lives are caused by "sin", not by mindless evolution.

What if the evil influence on humans is not just other humans? The word often associated with atrocities is "inhuman" which simply means "not human in nature or character." What if this level of evil comes from outside of human minds? Is that impossible? It could easily explain man's inhumanity.

And what if sentient creatures were never designed to kill other sentient creatures for food? That is, larger animals preying on other animals for survival? Lions attacking antelope....Polar Bears attacking seals? etc...

OTOH, what if non-sentient prey do not suffer? I am imagining whether krill suffer when being consumed by whales? Do insects suffer when eaten by other creatures?

Does grass suffer when it is being eaten by herbivores?

The Bible is our only textbook. We believe what it says, though at times it is allegorical and at times literal, understanding the difference is important. I don't believe that Genesis is allegory.
It tells us of our origins in simple terms and it also tells us that a 'coup' was staged in the beginning of man's history, but that rather than put down the rebellion, the Creator allowed it to run its course, providing future generations with an object lesson that will set precedents for all eternity to come? I see the outworking of what the Bible says, and it makes perfect sense to me.

1. Somebody, earlier in this thread, said something like "if ToE is true, then we would have an appendix or wisdom teeth." Apparently this means he thinks that those are artefacts mandated by the Intelligent Designer. There are many other things that are sub-optimal about our design(eyesight and blind spot, dangers of giving birth to a large-brained baby, etc.), and yet an Intelligent Designer should not be expected to choose bad designs, and a perfect designer should select only optimal designs. This is clearly not the case with the human body. Blind selection by ToE would be expected to produce frequently optimized designs, but hardly ever optimal ones -- which is exactly what we see. So, how does ID explain why we are as we are?

Please define "sub-optimal". Our eyesight is what we need for the life we were designed for. Just as the eyesight of eagles is optimal for the life they were designed for? How many people do you know complain about that wretched blind spot causing them problems in their everyday life?

What dangers exist by giving birth to large brained babies? I have given birth to two of them and it was amazing! Each species is designed for its environment, the conception and birth of its offspring, and its food source. What more does it need? Instinct....programmed survival mechanisms that are also furnished. Programing requires a programmer. When is this not so in human experience?

Before the flood of Noah's day, I believe that both man and animals were vegetarians....I also believe that we will go back to that original arrangement once the Creator has finished the present object lesson.

1. The question of why the evidence of life that has existed is so stratified cannot be ignored. Layers happen in chronological order, and nobody gets to insert one geological layer underneath another one crust of the earth. And the fossils found in those layers -- all over the earth -- show a clear progression of species. So, if ID is true, we need an explanation for why the Designer tried so very hard to fool us. ToE, of course, provides a perfectly rational explanation, but does ID?

The fossils show that they existed at those times...there is no evidence that any of them evolved into one another....that is pure speculation. The progression is imaginary and the suggestion is accepted without any substantial evidence....just diagrams that illustrate what they assume "might have" happened.

ID can tell you that the Creator is just that...creative. Must he conform to science's expectations? Or can he just be creative with what he has made without having to answer to anyone, least of all us.
Is the clay telling the potter he did it all wrong?

That the creatures in the fossil record existed is not in question, but the invisible links for evolution's chain are all missing. You can't have a chain without links. The links in evolution's diagrams, come from science's imagination, not reality. So please tell me how science is really on the high ground here? They have no more real evidence for their "suggestions" about how new life came to be, or how it adapted to new and changing environments, than we do. Adaptation is an inbuilt mechanism designed to facilitate a change of environment or food source. But it takes place only within species. There is no evidence that one kind can evolve into another completely different "kind" no matter how many millions of years you throw at it.

We have two belief system and those who adhere to them believe that the evidence presented for them proves their belief to be correct. We choose the belief system for our own reasons, but we also have to evaluate the evidence for ourselves. Science seems to want people to accept everything on their say so, pontificating that they have mountains of evidence for their theory....what they have is mountains of suggestion, conjecture and educated guessing. If that is the definition of mountains, I suggest it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

ID proponents have the living world of creation to see and evaluate with their own eyes and with their own logic and human experience. I know which one I prefer.....we are all free to choose.

 

[gnostic]

New Let's add one more element to the discussion and go from there...

God designed the laws of nature billions of years ago, set everything in motion, and everything runs according to those laws, which can be viewed as scientific theories, even though they were "intelligently designed" long ago.

Welcome to deism!

For the record, deism agrees with science, to include evolution. The difference is whereas science can't explain what caused the Big Bang, deism simply states that God caused it as the initial point of creation, and it is during that point that the laws of nature were created and set in motion. We view God as the "intelligent designer." The deistic position can't be refuted scientifically.

I'll watch the thread to see what develops.

EvangelicalHumanist has given us an explanation to process of acquiring information and data for science.

And how creationism and Intelligent Design failed to meet the requirements of science.

What you are describing that god in some ways started the process of for the mechanism of life is not substantiated with verifiable evidences.

Inserting "God" in your description is merely your personal opinion and belief.

Science required evidences for anything. There needs to be evidences for CAUSE (if any), as well as evidences for EFFECT...AND there to be evidences to link the two together.

For instance if you want to make ice from water what would you do?

You would freeze the water, like using a freezer.

The ice would be the "effect", the freezer would be the "cause". But more importantly, you would have physical "evidences" that the freezer is responsible for turning water into ice.

The important point is that freezer is not an invisible and magical machine. There are evidences that man designed and constructed the freezer, with all the parts.

Can you show that god really exist - with verifiable evidences, and not some imaginary or delusional wishes?

Because that all god is, a wishful fantasy created by man to explain something that they can't know.

What you are describing is not science.

Deism may be a step in the right direction, but like that of creationism and Intelligent Design, it still falls short in the "evidence" department.

 

[Neo Deist]

EvangelicalHumanist has given us an explanation to process of acquiring information and data for science.

And how creationism and Intelligent Design failed to meet the requirements of science.

What you are describing that god in some ways started the process of for the mechanism of life is not substantiated with verifiable evidences.

Inserting "God" in your description is merely your personal opinion and belief.

Science required evidences for anything. There needs to be evidences for CAUSE (if any), as well as evidences for EFFECT...AND there to be evidences to link the two together.

For instance if you want to make ice from water what would you do?

You would freeze the water, like using a freezer.

The ice would be the "effect", the freezer would be the "cause". But more importantly, you would have physical "evidences" that the freezer is responsible for turning water into ice.

The important point is that freezer is not an invisible and magical machine. There are evidences that man designed and constructed the freezer, with all the parts.

Can you show that god really exist - with verifiable evidences, and not some imaginary or delusional wishes?

Because that all god is, a wishful fantasy created by man to explain something that they can't know.

What you are describing is not science.

Deism may be a step in the right direction, but like that of creationism and Intelligent Design, it still falls short in the "evidence" department.

EvangelicalHumanist has given us an explanation to process of acquiring information and data for science.

And how creationism and Intelligent Design failed to meet the requirements of science.

What you are describing that god in some ways started the process of for the mechanism of life is not substantiated with verifiable evidences.

Inserting "God" in your description is merely your personal opinion and belief.

Science required evidences for anything. There needs to be evidences for CAUSE (if any), as well as evidences for EFFECT...AND there to be evidences to link the two together.

For instance if you want to make ice from water what would you do?

You would freeze the water, like using a freezer.

The ice would be the "effect", the freezer would be the "cause". But more importantly, you would have physical "evidences" that the freezer is responsible for turning water into ice.

The important point is that freezer is not an invisible and magical machine. There are evidences that man designed and constructed the freezer, with all the parts.

Can you show that god really exist - with verifiable evidences, and not some imaginary or delusional wishes?

Because that all god is, a wishful fantasy created by man to explain something that they can't know.

What you are describing is not science.

Deism may be a step in the right direction, but like that of creationism and Intelligent Design, it still falls short in the "evidence" department.

The flip side is that you can't disprove the existence of God per deism. Both sides come down to personal opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Intelligent design is neither science not religion why the heck is it?

Religion.

There...that was easy!

 

[gnostic]

The flip side is that you can't disprove the existence of God per deism. Both sides come down to personal opinion.

Without evidences, no deity, be it a deist god or not, such belief is never true.

 

[omega2xx]

The real point of any science is to try to find rational ways to explain what we see and experience. Gravity helps explain why we don't fly off this spinning ball, but then it also (almost magically) explains why and how planets orbit stars and satellites orbit planets and a whole lot of other things (including our sense of balance).

The Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory, attempts to explain our trillions of actual observations of what life is, what forms there are, how they are related, what forms there were (i.e. exist as fossils only, with no living examples), and how all this happens. It also tries to explain why the fossils of life forms past appear only separately in the geological strata -- the "written history" of the earth itself.

For most (actually, nearly all) people in the sciences, ToE does this with absolutely stunning accuracy. That makes it -- for them at least -- kind of compelling.

So, let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that ToE is wrong and Intelligent Design is the correct "scientific theory." Well, how might we examine that? We could, of course, do what science always does, and ask, "how does ID explain those things that we observe?"

So, let's propose some questions to see how well it might do that -- and alternately, whether it might not do it very well. I'll post some, and encourage others to think of more in this thread -- but most of all, I'm hoping that the supporters of ID, instead of saying "ToE is impossible" (which is what we always get), instead try to live up to their own belief in their theory, and actually try to answer the questions asked.

I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:

1. There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.
2. Somebody, earlier in this thread, said something like "if ToE is true, then we would have an appendix or wisdom teeth." Apparently this means he thinks that those are artefacts mandated by the Intelligent Designer. There are many other things that are sub-optimal about our design(eyesight and blind spot, dangers of giving birth to a large-brained baby, etc.), and yet an Intelligent Designer should not be expected to choose bad designs, and a perfect designer should select only optimal designs. This is clearly not the case with the human body. Blind selection by ToE would be expected to produce frequently optimized designs, but hardly ever optimal ones -- which is exactly what we see. So, how does ID explain why we are as we are?
3. The question of why the evidence of life that has existed is so stratified cannot be ignored. Layers happen in chronological order, and nobody gets to insert one geological layer underneath another one crust of the earth. And the fossils found in those layers -- all over the earth -- show a clear progression of species. So, if ID is true, we need an explanation for why the Designer tried so very hard to fool us. ToE, of course, provides a perfectly rational explanation, but does ID?

I will have more questions as the thread progresses -- I hope others will, too!

What you need more than more questions is more evidence for what you say. All you have said is the usual rhetoric with no evidence.

 

[metis]

So, are you [EH-- I hope he doesn't mind me butting in] saying that evolution can explain all this suffering but ID cannot?

But before we can even accept I.D. as a scientific hypothesis, we would have to be able to have objective evidence that there's an "Intelligence" that indeed exists, and we simply have no been able to do that. Trust me, I wish we could as I certainly would love to know if there is or isn't before I croak.

 

[Revoltingest]

But before we can even accept I.D. as a scientific hypothesis, we would have to be able to have objective evidence that there's an "Intelligence" that indeed exists, and we simply have no been able to do that.

No evidence for such an intelligence is necessary beforehand.
Why?
Because if ID successfully made testable predictions,
this result itself would be evidence thereof.

 

[interminable]

The real point of any science is to try to find rational ways to explain what we see and experience. Gravity helps explain why we don't fly off this spinning ball, but then it also (almost magically) explains why and how planets orbit stars and satellites orbit planets and a whole lot of other things (including our sense of balance).

The Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory, attempts to explain our trillions of actual observations of what life is, what forms there are, how they are related, what forms there were (i.e. exist as fossils only, with no living examples), and how all this happens. It also tries to explain why the fossils of life forms past appear only separately in the geological strata -- the "written history" of the earth itself.

For most (actually, nearly all) people in the sciences, ToE does this with absolutely stunning accuracy. That makes it -- for them at least -- kind of compelling.

So, let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that ToE is wrong and Intelligent Design is the correct "scientific theory." Well, how might we examine that? We could, of course, do what science always does, and ask, "how does ID explain those things that we observe?"

So, let's propose some questions to see how well it might do that -- and alternately, whether it might not do it very well. I'll post some, and encourage others to think of more in this thread -- but most of all, I'm hoping that the supporters of ID, instead of saying "ToE is impossible" (which is what we always get), instead try to live up to their own belief in their theory, and actually try to answer the questions asked.

I'll start with one of the most obvious questions that I think needs explaining if ID is true:

1. There are literally thousands of life forms that by their very nature cause immense suffering -- and death -- to many other life forms (including humans, guilty and innocent, very young and very old) quite apparently at random. The list is simply enormous and the suffering often terrible beyond description. So, I ask myself, why would a Designer fashion me -- and at the same time something that can cause me unbearable agony and eventually destroy me? And not just me -- the newborn child who can't possibly be guilty of anything warranting such pain, not to mention the grief of family. If you accept ID, there must be an intelligent, or intelligible answer to this. The theory of ID should be able to explain it. The ToE, by the way, can explain it with almost trivial ease.
2. Somebody, earlier in this thread, said something like "if ToE is true, then we would have an appendix or wisdom teeth." Apparently this means he thinks that those are artefacts mandated by the Intelligent Designer. There are many other things that are sub-optimal about our design(eyesight and blind spot, dangers of giving birth to a large-brained baby, etc.), and yet an Intelligent Designer should not be expected to choose bad designs, and a perfect designer should select only optimal designs. This is clearly not the case with the human body. Blind selection by ToE would be expected to produce frequently optimized designs, but hardly ever optimal ones -- which is exactly what we see. So, how does ID explain why we are as we are?
3. The question of why the evidence of life that has existed is so stratified cannot be ignored. Layers happen in chronological order, and nobody gets to insert one geological layer underneath another one crust of the earth. And the fossils found in those layers -- all over the earth -- show a clear progression of species. So, if ID is true, we need an explanation for why the Designer tried so very hard to fool us. ToE, of course, provides a perfectly rational explanation, but does ID?

I will have more questions as the thread progresses -- I hope others will, too!

Testing people is the ultimate of this design. People aren't in a same capacities.

الملك
الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفُورُ
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving - (2)



This world isn't supposed to be a perfect world. By death , disease , accident , hunger , thirsty , love , beauty , talent and .... we have been tested by God and this will be continued.

البقره
وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُم بِشَيْءٍ مِّنَ الْخَوْفِ وَالْجُوعِ وَنَقْصٍ مِّنَ الْأَمْوَالِ وَالْأَنفُسِ وَالثَّمَرَاتِ وَبَشِّرِ الصَّابِرِينَ
And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient, (155)


It's not written on those fossils that we evolved. Those so called scientists say that.
What is the problem of believing that God created every animal separately??

 

[viole]

Let's add one more element to the discussion and go from there...

God designed the laws of nature billions of years ago, set everything in motion, and everything runs according to those laws, which can be viewed as scientific theories, even though they were "intelligently designed" long ago.

Welcome to deism!

The problem is that "time" is also part of the laws of nature. The idea that nature unfolds during something that is not part of it might be fallacious, as Einstein showed. So, it might make no sense to say that God designed the laws of nature some billions years ago.

So, "when" did God exacly design the laws of Nature, if time is part of them?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

I will try to respond to your objections to ID.
1. You are assuming that our Designer created us to suffer and die. I believe the Bible explains how suffering and death started, and that we were created perfect, with the prospect of living forever. (Romans 5:12) If we see a wrecked car, we do not quickly assume the Designer of the car did a poor job. We assume (rightly) that something bad happened to the car after it's design and creation.
2. One must be cautious in judging various organs as sub-optimal. On closer examination, critics of how various organs are designed and function have been proven wrong about their design assumptions. Again, we were not created to suffer the diseases and ills we experience, but this situation occurred due to events man is responsible for, IMO.
3. I do not agree with your conclusions about the fossil record.
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The flip side is that you can't disprove the existence of God per deism. Both sides come down to personal opinion.

However, we are talking about science, here. No to to prove or disprove the existence of God, so let's leave God out of it.

We still have the question of whether one of two theories -- Evolution (natural/undirected) or Intelligent Design, (both post-God or post-abiogenesis) -- offers better explanations for the observations about life in our world as we can observe it now, and as we can reconstruct it in the past from fossil and other evidences.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, are you saying that evolution can explain all this suffering but ID cannot?

Yes. Undirected, evolved development of life forms would naturally result in such forms competing with each other for limited resources. In such a world, each life form is itself a resource, and thus, we see just what we would expect.

If life (especially human life) were designed intelligently for a purpose, then it must also be accepted that the same designer is responsible for those things that torture and kill us. No natural reason can be found for that, and thus you would be forced (as all religions are) to invent stories that seemingly explain, but really do not.

 

[Neo Deist]

Without evidences, no deity, be it a deist god or not, such belief is never true.

Science is not the be all, end all to every equation. There are a great many things that science can't explain (with our current knowledge).

The basis for my belief is in the study of the cosmos. I see design and purpose, not randomness. That is not something that you can argue against or disprove, especially considering the size of the universe and how unknown it is to us. Anything could be out there. Scientific law could be displaced by forces unknown. Keep an open mind.

 

[Valjean]

God designed the laws of nature billions of years ago, set everything in motion, and everything runs according to those laws, which can be viewed as scientific theories, even though they were "intelligently designed" long ago.

Your God premise needs support, and I don't think of Natural Laws as scientific theories.

For the record, deism agrees with science, to include evolution. The difference is whereas science can't explain what caused the Big Bang, deism simply states that God caused it as the initial point of creation, and it is during that point that the laws of nature were created and set in motion. We view God as the "intelligent designer." The deistic position can't be refuted scientifically.

Deism may allow for Natural Selection, but there is nothing 'scientific' about it's major premise -- God.
I'll also take exception to your statement that "science can't explain what caused the Big Bang." I think "hasn't yet" could better replace "can't."
True, Deism may not be scientifically refutable, but the burden of proof, in this case, is on the party asserting the magical personage, not science. The supernatural is not within the purview of science.

Where so you get this knowledge of what happened so long ago?

Observation, research and testing. Do you not understand what science does?