Evolution vs. Intelligent Design?
106231
Organic evolution is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differeing genetically in one or more traits.These changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of the species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon.\nThe net result is descent with modification.  Intelligent Design proves nothing because it cannot be proven with experiments which form no educated predictions nor hypotheses. To prove there is a God one would look at E=mcsquared.  We know what c and E are but someone had to make or present the m. \nFossils are sufficient evidence in which some resemble ape like ancestors. Human and Chimp DNA are 99.4% identical in protein-coding segments and 98.4% identity overall. Realize that any human is related to any other human by 99.9%. Therefore in structural genes, we differ by only 0.5% from the chimp. If you want more ask, email me at rossman_2003@yahoo.com
1009217
The intricacy of the laws that govern our universe make me think it must be designed rather than random.  \n\nIf you really are interested, there are many books about the how modern science almost proves that there is intelligent design based on the shear overwhelming number and perfection of physical laws that can be used to describe the universe.\n\nHas Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe - by Victor J. Stenger\n\nOr\n\nLife, the Universe and Everything: Investigating God and the New Physics\nby Andy Fletcher\n\nare just two.\n\nGive em a try!
397544
There is plenty of unintelligent design to dismiss this idea.\n\nAn irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."\n\nH. Allen Orr\n\nIntelligent design does not discount everything in evolution, and so they would agree with mainstream science on the answers to most of your questions. Intelligent design allows boils down to God planned it that way.  That's why it can't be taught alongside evolution, because it involves belief, not evidence.\n\n"ID advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support ID, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory."\n\n...\n\n"What are the "scientific" arguments used to support Intelligent Design?\n\nA. The arguments for Intelligent Design are primarily arguments from ignorance, also known as god-of-the-gaps arguments. ID advocates also claim to have positive evidence of ID, in the form of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity", but these arguments turn out to be disguised arguments from ignorance. In addition, ID advocates sometimes make an argument from analogy. A lot of their effort is also devoted to attacking specific aspects of evolutionary theory, rather than giving support to their own ID hypothesis.\n\nhttp://www.talkdesign.org/introfaq.html
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
677385
Creationist stories were written to explain what could no be explained by science, specifically, where we came from.  Science has since explained this with the theory of evolution.  Evolution is what really happened; creationism was simply created to fill the holes until we figured it out.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, bu
347714
“Intelligent Design” is a less-scientific repackaging of the “Creationism” ideas pushed back in the 1980’s; and I say it is less scientific because the 1980’s version contained testable statements about the age of the Earth and the deposition of sediments – they were testable, they were tested, they were proved false.\n\nNo other scientific theory has been put forth that explains “how we got here” better than evolution – science, by definition, involves testable hypotheses – thus, the currently popular “Intelligent Design” idea (which has quite a few flaws, check out the link below to the Dover, PA trial about the biology “disclaimer”).
49693
Well, I doubt many people want a full course on intelligent design. Rather, they are pushing for a brief (a few minutes) statement in bio classes along the lines of :\n\n"Not everyone agrees with evolution, and there are religious beliefs which conflict with it, as well as this intelligent design concept. Go read the Pandas and People book for more info if you want. Please don't sue us."
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.
1091281
I can understand where your coming from but before you make any conclusions on evolution take a look at this website.  It has all you need to know about evolution vs. creationism.  http://www.talkorigins.org/.  The reason so many people believe in evolution is that every field of natural science supports it independently from geology, biology, genetics etc. and it makes a lot of sense once you sit down and really analyze the fact.  Unfortunately there is much misinformation out there so I urge you to read the information on the website and then make up you mind on evolution.  Personally I feel that evolution and religion can co-exist.  I feel that its a shame religious leaders exploit controversial topics in order to rally their base.  The true teachings of religion are of acceptance and forgiveness and any dogmatic interpretations of the bible (or any religious text) only serve to weaken message.
1093646
I am the I.D. disciple, it is my sacred mission here to spread the glorious (and scientific) word of Intelligent Design (or I.D.).\n\nOnly through true harmonious integration of theology and science can our world be completely understood (and logically explained).  The key Principle of I.D. is Science Harmoniously Integrating Theology (or S.H.I.T.)  Please join me on our wonderful journey through the world of S.H.I.T.\n\nIntelligent Design - coming soon to a school district near you! \n\nGlory be ID
820895
The theory of intelligent design is the same as when the ancient celts said "mushroom circles form because of fairies". Infact their is no evidence of intelligent design at all. Creationist Science is completely non empirical and a total insult to real science. Its either the earth is a giant labratory of differrent combinations of rna that is billions of years old and the universe started with the culmination of a big bang that was created by what quantum physics calls "the quantum bounce effect" or a black hole creating a baby universe. Or... some giant mythological being created a man and a woman from clay in a magic garden 4000 years ago. Thousands of years ago people did not have science and the world was a big and scary place, they were at the mercy of the elements so they used Gods and Goddesses to humanize the world around them. Sooner or later that developed into monothiesm. Then the early christians stole their creator diety from the Hebrew people. Talk about copywriting. However even though their is tons of real evidence backing up the anthropic principle. Millions of people are very primitive and need a diety otherwise their world view is incomplete.
1102688
I don't care if someone wants to believe in intelligent design. I just think it shouldn't be taught as a science. Primarily because it doesn't even meet the definition. \nThe definition of science is a body of established knowledge that is used to examine, analyze and predict natural phenomena.\nWith examination and analysis, those who support intelligent design use exactly the same methods evolutionary scientists use. The only difference is they add God to the mix. They find evidence of God, because they put Him there.\nAnd with prediction - how can you predict the mind of God?\nMany people misunderstand the scientific method. It's not to prove a hypothesis, it's to disprove all other possibilities. Leaving only one possible explanation. Intelligent design starts with a hypothesis and then focuses solely on proving it.\nMichelangelo once said that when he sculpts, the finished sculpture is already inside the block of marble. He's just removing everything else. That's what REAL scientists do. They remove everything else, until there's nothing left but the truth.\n\n>>ddead alive: Don't talk to us like we're children. Your arguments are skewed, presuppose too much and often completely ridiculous. Not to mention the quotes taken out of context. Though I don't believe the same things you do, at least I have enough courtesy and respect not to insult your intelligence.
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...
1066627
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.
418415
evolution is just mans way of trying to understand how life got here and is how it is. Its a theory and not a proven fact. People just refuse to believe a higher power created them.\nI believe in breeding and that's it. God created basic life on the planet and then through breeding of those animals we got several different species in one classification of such.
674352
Creation... Evolution is said to be based on logic but even the smartest professors in whatever it is that they do admit that evolution has never been proven... The whole Big Bang thing... If it were true where did that little molecule com from??? Get real people... God created everything...