I am new at this computer and school stuff I need to find info to compare intelligent design and organic evolution in words that a non-scientist can understand.  Short and sweet, my essay that is.
216068
There is an excellent resource regarding both.  But I agree with the idea that since ID isn't scientific, (As ruled by Judges Jones in the Kilmitzer vs Dover trial 2004), then it should be a tad bit one sided.\n\nCheck out the sources listed below for in-depth info.
609125
This is a great source for you:\nhttp://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ogunseitan/student.asp\nEnjoy the microbes!\n;-D
239860
Well, there is genetic analysis, both of the cell DNA and of the mitochondrial DNA.  That's been pretty darn conclusive in favor of evolution.\n\n(But I don't know why I bother answering you; you clearly have your mind made up already and are not interested in inconvenient facts.)
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.
642776
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
558502
Could you clarify your question?\n\n\nEDIT:\nRead the answer carefully from Leviter_atin... It is good.\n\nReally look at the website s/he provided.\n\nAlso, I recommend you look at at least one book about evolution- "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Miller is a Christian and a cell biologist.  He does a VERY good job of explaining how science/evolution are NOT incompatible with Christianity.
668585
Yeah, the only people dumb enough to think you were really arguing for creationism were evolutionists.\n\nBecause your stupid question is exactly what evolutionists think creationism/Intelligent Design is about.  \n\nToo bad you people won't do any independent reading because we all know the public schools aren't going to broaden your knowledge of the topic.
143477
Spillmonkey.com.. More news than you can shake a monkey at.. We...\nThat the great Greek philosipher Aristotle, after he had finshed teaching ... Alexander, had noticed the inferiority of the fork and the spoon, so\nhttp://www.spillmonkey.com/spork/index.shtml\n\nbcgrowers title\nIMO worms are some great and amazing creatures.As the greek philosipher Aristotle said "Worms are the intestines of the earth" Wow we have...\nhttp://www.cannabase.com/cl/bcga/chat/chat_mar1.htm\n\neBay Australia - Prints, Prints framed, limited, Contemporary...\n1900s ANTIQUE PRINT ARISTOTLE SCIENTIST PHILOSIPHER      US $7.99 <1m     Whalebones, Whitby      GBP 14.40 - <1m\nhttp://attr-search.ebay.com.au/_Prints_W0QQcatrefZC12QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQgc...orderZ2QQsaatc...\n\nPlato Message Board\nANYBODY PLEASE HELP! · PLATO, ARISTOTLE,AND CICERO ON PHILOSIPHER KINGS!? tremons016 tree order\nhttp://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?b=85&m=952325&p=2&t=281189&w=1\n\nAristotle Message Board\n...of PHILOSIPHER-KINGS tremons016 tree order ... Started on 11/17/04 12:27 AM 1 Reply last msg 11/24/04 6:57 PM ... 227 Views · Plato/Aristotle...\nhttp://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?b=84&m=952335&t=281194&w=1\n\nLost Spirit :: View topic - gays marrying?!\nQuote: Originally Posted by golers671 first of all, theres something called Aristocracy, deriving from the greek philosipher, Aristotle.\nhttp://www.lostspirit.com/t399413p16-gays-marrying.htm
647309
I will have to support Evolution! Let me give you a definition of Evolution!\nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. \n! By the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
164353
I would summarize, but I wouldn't want to leave out any detail you're seeking:\n\nHere are some lecture notes on the subject:\nhttp://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Lecture29_111504.pdf\n\nHope that helps-
19600
Wikipedia is good and it has references.\n\nDon't forget the many encyclopedias at your local public library.\n\nThe National Center for Science Education recommends books, including books on human evolution and on the creationism controversy.
351402
Creationism or the Theory of Intellegent Design...same thing
542447
try google scholar, some times you will come accross an articles that is free, \nthe web of knowledage is also good\nor what you could do is go to a bookshop, a big bookshop, for students, and they will usually have some of the publications there, Nature, is a good general one for science, good luck, but i have to say that unless you have access to a university library then it is hard to acquire copies of articles...\n\nohh one more thing if you want something specific, mail me and i can find it at my uni....... and send it to you..........
2892
Creation-DNA and the human body are far too complex to be be thrown together by chance.\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life.\n\nNow, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidently evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots. Science has its own beliefs and faiths. One of them in nucleonic glue holding like particles together in an atom, or evolution which is merely a theory accepted as fact. It is just an agenda to keep God out of the public arena.
563697
Intelligent design is just a theory.  In my opinion it ranks a little below scientific theories because it is faith-based and not fact-based.  but the bottom line is that all we have is theory.  Nothing has been proven absolutely. It should be said that "theory" is not proven fact, so it is actually premature to accept any theory as truth until the time when enough provable facts are gathered.\n\nThe argument between Creationism and Science is a man-made contrivance geared toward securing political control.  Isn't it sad that in our culture we are returning to a time when questioning blind faith constitutes Blasphemy or Heresy?  The basic thing to remember is that blind faith is blind.  If Creationists truly believed what they are claiming, why would they be afraid of controversy?
71631
10,000 American clergy members signed this letter to the same effect.\n\nFor too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.\n\nIn the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.\n\nThe outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important  perspective, click here.  Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages.  And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.\n\n\nSincerely,\n\nMichael Zimmerman\nDean\nCollege of Letters and Sciences\nUniversity of Wisconsin Oshkosh
12695
Beatz, Beatz, Beatz.  What were you thinking?  You should have known that there would be nothing but appeals to ignorance poffered as evidence as answers to your question.  What's worse is that, even though people like Behe make those continual suggestions that a lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation, so much of what creationists claim has not been explained has been.  From immune systems to eyeballs, it's all been done in the journals.\n\nI'm not sure which is more pathetic... the fact that the creationist position is based off of a logical fallacy, or that they aren't even right when they keep chanting their "Science hasn't explained this" mantra.  I used to be a Christian, and from that I can say, absolutely, that the kind of lazyness and willful dishonesty displayed by people of this sort is NOT a good way of emulating Christ.\n\nAnyway, I've seen some of your posts, and I like them a lot.  Keep up the good work.\n\n[EDIT]: Jesus Christ Rob... before you open your mouth to talk about thermodynamics again, you might want to, you know, actually learn something about thermodynamics.  You have completely botched both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  You cannot draw conclusions from flimsy, qualitative, and innacurate paraphrasings of precise quantitative laws.  I'm getting tired of putting this old chesnut back down every time one of Hovind's lackeys digs it up again, so I'm going to send you here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\nand here:\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6JrBwCTk&isbn=0226075745&itm=1\nand I'll mention these:\n"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun." (See Rob? That's what happens when you ignore that whole "closed system" part of the Second Law).\nand:\n"Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up." -Michael Shermer\n\nAnd one other thing: that "mutations are always fatal and not beneficial" stuff is utter bunk.  Everyone reading this now is carring multiple mutant genes.  Can you taste litmus paper?  Or see the 3-D images in the magic eye pictures?  Congratulations: you're a mutant.  There are many very harmful mutations, yes.  But by admitting that, you are also admitting that natural selection does indeed happen.  As for beneficial mutations, those happen also, and have been exhaustively documented:\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html\nAnd I'd also like you to ask yourself what makes a mutation beneficial.  And then think about your answer.  And then realize that that is ALSO exactly what is meant by natural selection.