Evolution and Intelligent design
124399
No. Darwin figured out many of the basics, but the theory today is much more sophisticated than Darwin ever imagined. This is why we now have the "modern synthesis". Darwin had a different, and largely incorrect, idea of how inheritance worked, and never imagined the complexities inherent in modern biochemistry. The fundamental idea was Darwin's, but it has changed so much that we could not rightly say that the modern theory of evolution is what Darwin had in mind.\n\nIncidentally, sun_of_samsa claimed "this ultimately is what caused him to change his theory later in life, however he did not "revoke it on his deathbed" as many creationists claim." This is patently false; Charles Darwin died in 1882, 18 years before Mendel's work was to be rediscovered. Further, I know of no evidence that Darwin changed his theory, as he had no access to any of the evidence which would later require modifications to his theory. Perhaps there is some, though, in his personal letters; unlike his books, I have not read all of his personal correspondence.\n\nFurther, leonkallai's post is patently ridiculous, and demonstrates a near-complete ignorance of the last two (or more) centuries of biology, physics, and geology.
41005
depends...there are two types of creationists, biblical and intelligent design creationists. Biblical and religious creationists believe God created the humans and all otehr creatures as they are 5764 years ago. Intelligent Design believers say God created humans according to an intelligent design and we have evolved from there
118413
Your argument has some assumptions, assertions, and logic that are not sound.\n\nFirst of all, you only multiply probabilities together when they are independent variables - it would be easy to argue that many of the items that you mentioned are interdependent.\n\nAlso, I think you misunderstand what evolution of species is proposing.  Evolution does NOT depend on luck - it is instead an observation that lucky organisms survive and pass on their properties to their descendants.\n\nConsider bacteria - almost all mutations are harmful but a few bacteria have lucky mutations that make them immune to penicillin.  If penicillin is used on bacteria, only these lucky ones survive - and most of their descendants inherit the the same immunity-mutation.  \n\nThe original mutation is luck - the environment then selects and a small set of traits due to beneficial mutations persists.  And THAT is not luck, that is selection.  That's why the process is called "Natural Selection".  \n\nSadly, this is why almost all bacteria were zapped by the early antibiotics, and now (only 60 years later) we have hundreds of resistant strains.
609185
First off I would like to say that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with humans or creation of our world as many anti-evolutionists seem to believe.  Next, if you deny evolution than how can you explain antibiotic resistant bacteria, insecticide resistant insects, etc, etc, etc.  If you confuse evolution and human evolution then that is your own issue as so many have previously posted.  Lastly, about our own HUMAN evolution, if you think that humans do not evolve, then you believe we are not a living part of this natural world and deny HERITABLE MUTATION.  If you deny all of this and still deny evolution, human or not, then I truly believe you are a lunatic and don't believe in worldly fact.  You might as well say the world is flat and pray to the sun God.  PLEASE DO NOT DISREGARD SCIENCE AS SO MANY PEOPLE DO, LOOK AT THE FACTS (NOT THE PROPAGANDA THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MAY FILL YOU WITH) AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AND ITS KEY CONCEPTS WHICH IS THE ONLY THING WE CAN REALLY BANK ON IN THIS WORLD.
577470
Well, I'm a Christian biologist, and I know many others who are.  I accept that evolution occured, but I do think it was necessary for God to direct it.  There are too many irreducibly complex systems at the cellular level, and too many astronomically unlikely coincidences that would have had to take place, if natural selection were completely responsible for the phenomenon.  Even a time span of billions of years is just not enough to account for it, statistically speaking.  That's my professional opinion, and I'm far from the only one who thinks so.
574106
Humans didn't evolve. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:\n\n* Cells and DNA\nIn Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.\n\nAccording to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."\n\nEven the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.\n\nInside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.\n\nThe most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.\n\n"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University\n\nDNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?\n\nDNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?\n\nSince DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only
382580
Sure. \nLike Southpark said, evolution answers the question how, and religion answers the question why.
480238
Evolution and the means to survive.
659735
Evolution is infinite.
594979
The problem with human kind is its ignorance...and logic. As the world develops people tend to judge the basis of truth and lie on the evidence that is laid infront of them. The fact of the question that you asked i would like to state that Religion and Science have always contradicted each other, if an individual considers one to be true then believes the other is false...the two have a very different perspective about the existence of human race. The theory we have in science of evolution tells of how we transformed from apes to what we are now...and in Bible in the Genisis we know about Adam and Eve and how God created them..It is a very difficult concept to understand but many of us rely on sources, theroies and belief to put in our understanding. The Bible says 'A faith that depends on the evidence of the senses does not survive trails'...we have to believe something whole-heartedly then only is our belief strong and firm. I chose to respect the evolution theory but believe on God's existence...there are many aspects of life that have been categorized as innate..i.e qualities that are part of us since we are born such as our inner feelings...our conscience is a very good example of this...which helps us to distinguish between right and wrong..true and false...!! As for the evidence of God's existence..is not false as we have been given signs of his existence but we never take them seriously...everything written in the Bible was and is still evident in the world..the path of Jesus carrying his cross to calvary is still there..his tomb..and many..many more!! All this shows us of his existence...Nature..speaks about the wonders of God...but we avoid looking at it...Probably, the need of proving and disproving is upon an individuals belief...i know that someone high above is always protecting and keeping me in his shelter..because i can feel it and i know.. and noone can challenge it logically..!!
344693
God is Creator of the Universe (Big Bang). He created not only objects and stuff. He also created the laws the universe would develop. Thus evolution is one of the laws God prescribed to Nature.\nI expect this would not satisfy your parish minister, as all of them are conservative. But here and there the Holy Script is not translated correctly because unlike other dead tongues the ancient Hebrew (not modern) is mostly vague. But Bible is still a very great scientific book. The modern theory of evolution (and Darwin’s as well) is not flawless of course. And there are evident facts!\nThe issue demands more space and time to discuss it here. Sorry!
133817
Yes. Any mutations (new ideas) that occur with data that is being viewed in an evolutionary sense and that survives or persist (such as Islam and Christianity), are examples of evolution.\n\nThis is not biological evolution per se, it just follows the same algorithm.  Some Christians will have a hard time buying this, partly because their religion has in many ways, demonized the word, 'evolution'.  Some just see monkeys when they hear that word, they have a hard time getting beyond that because it would break down big chunks of their belief stucture and who they feel they are inside.
174616
Intelligent design is the theory that a higher power (God) created the universe. It is the opposite of the evolution theory. One argument for it is that the complexity of life suggests that an intelligent being is necessary to create it. An argument against it is that there is no solid proof that a higher being exists. Some proposed solutions to the shortage in oil include drilling into new reserves, developing more fuel efficient products, and producing alternative energy products. This took a while to type, so I would appreciate your vote as your favorite answer.
271292
>>>If life was not created by an intelligent, self-aware,\n>>> designer, where did evolution get intelligence and self \n>>>awareness to "give" us?\n\n\nIt got it from a series of mutations and processes selecting for increased intelligence. Intelligence is simply the result of ever increasing ability to process and respond to sensory information. It is no harder to ‘get’ than size. \n\nYou might just as well ask if all organisms evolved from microscopic bacteria, where did evolution get size to give to whales. The difference between whales and bacteria in terms of size is one of degree, not kind. And in exactly the same the difference between a human and a bacterium WRT intelligence is one of degree, not kind.\n\n\n\n>>>>There appear to be three levels of life, plants (having\n>>>> no awareness), animals (having sensory perception), and \n>>>> humans(perceiving self and contemplating all things). \n\nThat quite obviously isn’t true. Anyone who has lived outside a city knows that plants perceive and respond to the passing of the seasons and the timing of the rains.\n\nOnce again I have to stress that the difference between plant intelligence and human intelligence is one of degree, not of kind. It is not the case that plants have one type of intelligence and humans have another. Plants simply have much less intelligence than humans\n\n>>>>Neoteny… How can anything retain something which it has\n>>>> not received? How can anything be received from a\n>>>> source that does not have *that* thing?\n\nI think you need to spend at leats one hour studying this subject before criticising. All animals receive the genetic instructions for their juvenile from their parents.\n\nIt is amazing that someone in the 21st century could actually believe that God personally builds young animals and that the form of a kitten has no genetic basis whatsoever.
465505
I think some of the answers confirm your argument. There seems to be ignorance of the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. That evolutionary change in species occurs is definitely not in question-there is no doubt whatsoever based on the extensive fossil record and physiological similarities between species-so those who make a blanket statement about evolution not being a fact are talking rubbish. Only the theory-the mechanisms involved are subject to any conjecture although there is no competing theory to challenge natural selection so that is accepted as fact by 99% of biologists. Creationism has nothing to contribute to science. It can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
603667
I am a Christian and I have found remarkable facts that have bolstered my faith in Intelligent Design. To name one, Irreducable Complexity. It is the fact, (Not Theory) that the simplest cell in our body was created completely in a moment's time, instead of a gradual evolution. It is like a mouse trap. There's a board, spring, lever, and latch. The cell, like the trap, has components that compliment each other in the same way the trap does. If you took one component away the trap would be defective, likewise if the cell is left without all the necessary systems it will perish leaving no time for evolution.
366721
Science/evolution is how.\nReligion/God is why.