Is intelligent design a valid theory to counter evolution?
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”).
84013
Whaddaya mean no one was here for either. The world evolves every second of every day. As for intelligent design, would you look at one of the pyramids of Egypt and say "wow..look what the wind did".  Isn't life, even in its simplest form, much more complex than the pyramids?
989708
The objective of the search for truth begins by answering questions, that lead to new questions, etc. Some would call this flawed, but in reality we are meant to search. In intelligent design (the new name for creationism), you begin with the thought that the answers are preordained, then you submit your findings to fit what is written. Sorry, but Creationism or ID has no place in a Science class. You can not measure advances in Creation. Religion or Philosophy classes perhaps, but not Science.
886109
No. I say you are exactly right. There's no science in intelligent design. So it can't be a scientific theory. Sorry ID believers - there's just no process of discovery in your belief.
44398
No. In fact, the whole point of Intelligent Design is merely to cause a public debate on evolution. The fact is that Intelligent Design starts with a conclusion (Creationism), then works out a package which was designed to be school-friendly, and provide "evidence" which might trick people who are unfamiliar with the real science of the situation. The ID movement's claims that ID is intended to be non-specific in its creator is revealed by the Wedge document to be a lie.
440358
No.\n\nSchneb is being purposefully deceiving by quoting Darwin out of context.  Isn't that on a par with lying?\n\nEbertis should read a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer.  In it, he gives very good explanations of how intelligent people can deceive themselves into believing something very wrong.  He should also know that Behe has been thoroughly debunked and for facts and evidence he should take a look at talkorigins.org.\n\nFor those of you who defend "intelligent design," maybe you should take a look at this question:\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsLJbgNxwECve8d_AOzB.wfsy6IX?qid=1006042026788\n\nSecretsauce got it right away.
123134
Of course it's possible. Evolution is merely the mechanism of God's creation.\n\nPersonally, I feel the inherent contradiction is in the opposite direction. Rejection of evolutionary theory reduces God to a deceiver, to a 'God of parts' filling in the gaps in our understanding of creation, rather than underpinning it in it's entirety, it also rejects one of the greatest of God's gifts, the faculty of pure reason.\n\nPeople are, of course, welcome to their opinion, but I feel that the belief that God would create the universe in seven days, ten thousand years ago and then fix it in such a manner as to give all the impressions to the contrary is close to blasphemy
630426
First off, creationism is not a scientific theory.  Please don't elevate it to that level with the term "scientific creationism."  Creationism is religion, not science.\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, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n
581
Intelligent design embodies a theology that features a god who is malicious toward people.  \n\n1.  When you look below the surface, the world is filled with evidence that leads open minded people to conclude that evolution has occurred.  This evidence comes from the fields of paleontology, paleogeography, biogeography, molecular biology, genetics, embryology, and probably lots of others.  The god of intelligent design would have had to rig this evidence in favor of misleading us.\n\n2.  If the god of intelligent design violates the natural laws he created to create living organisms and to create false evidence, how often does he do this?  For example, maybe two seconds ago, he created the us and the entire universe, including this message up to this point, my memory of having written it, and your memory of having read it thus far.  If god violates natural law, anything is possible.\n\n3.  If the intelligent design god is going to create the world in any whimsical way, then he created all the suffering that we endure when he could have created a world without suffering.  Either he willfuly created our suffering, or he is an inept creator.\n\n4.  If the existence of complex organisms proves the existence of an intelligent designer, then the existence of the intelligent designer proves the existence of a more intelligent designer who created him.  ...and an even more intelligent designer who created the second one.   ...and an even more than more intelligent designer who created the thrid one.  ...and so on, ad infinitum.  Which one should be worshiped?  What will happen to our souls if we worship the wrong one?\n\n5.  I'm sure that people better versed in philosophy and theology could add many more reasons to believe that the god of intelligent design is malicious.
24346
Please make the context of your question more clear.\n\nI see now that you're referring to another question (Why is intelligent design a fallacy?) in Yahoo Answers, and to a response made by user "titq."\n\nWhy not send him/her email and ask directly?\n\nFor more info on the ID debate, take a look at the following web sites:\n\nhttp://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/\nhttp://www.talkdesign.org/\nhttp://www.natcenscied.org/\nhttp://www.natcenscied.org/article.asp
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
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.  :-)
1000533
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?
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...
897391
I think that any rational, reasonable individual when presented with the weight of our current knowledge and understanding regards the process of evolution would reasonably have to conclude that evolution is indeed at work on global biology.\n\nHowever, evolution is not just restricted to biological systems.  Consider our collective sense of humour.  Things which were considered hilarious in the very early part of the 20th century (silent movies) some of that humour is now so old to have lost any humourous content.  Why is that?  Because we've moved on and our tastes have evolved to more complex and alternative themes based on our modern life etc.\n\nConsider financial systems.  They too are evolving.  Capitalism is another test bed for the survival of the fitest.  There are winners and losers just as there are in biology.\n\nThere are many more examples.  The reduction of the variety and extinction of languages etc.\n\nThe validity of Darwinianism is only questioned (or rather refuted) by those of a religious nature who have been indoctrinated against the idea and are determined to continue to deny its validity irrespective of the weight of evidence presented for it.\n\nLogic does not play a part in their argument.  Faith and belief without understanding is all that is required.  In my opinion people who carry on about their lives in this bubble of ignorance are neither rational nor reasonable individuals.  They are brainwashed into submission and ignorance.  And sadly they have a tendency to fight long and hard to stay that way.  Most although not all are beyond help.\n\nOne final example of evolution in action:  It has been predicted that science will have eradicated religion within a couple centuries, as increases in the availability of education and the spread of democracy continue.  Given the negative impact that such religious stigmatisation and dogma is currently having on main stream scientific advancement, as far as I'm concerned, societal evolution resulting in the demise religion can't happen soon enough.
335431
There is only one - Darwin's.  Google it and you'll find more information than you could use in a year.  \n\nNo other idea regarding the origin of humankind and the process of evolution is viable - not "intelligent design", not "creation science", nor any other answer but Evolution.\n\nYou must remember that, in science, a theory is not just somebody's best guess.  A theory is an explanation based upon facts.  Evolutionary theory is the base upon which modern science is built.\n\nRight now the newspapers and t.v. are talking about "bird flu" as if it's something we need to be scared of.  Bird flu cannot be spread from person to person.  But the virus could, and is very likely to, change to the point that it can indeed be spread from person to person.  If that happens, it will happen because the virus evolved.  This sort of thing happens time and again - proving that not only has evolution happened in the past, but that it is still happening.\n\nOne more thing: Niether Darwin nor his theory ever said that humankind descended from monkeys!  Good luck on your school project - now get to work!
76003
Science is a methodology - a way to go about finding information.  Below I've posted two blogs I've written.  The first one deals with creationism and science - I include it because it describes what is science and what is not. The second blog is an essay on the theory of evolution. Check out the links in the cited section for pictures and links to additional information.\n\n------------------\nIn the news today, evolution and creationism are once again on trail.  This time the lawsuit is taking place in Harrisburg Penn over the addition of creationism’s latest offering – Intelligent Design theory – into school text books. \n\n \n\nAccording to this report, intelligent design purports to be an ‘alternative theory’ to the theory of evolution.  In fact, according to the article, intelligent design purports to:\n\n \n\n"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.\n\nWith respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”[1]\n\nOn the face of it, this part of the disclaimer seems reasonable.  The question is – is intelligent design an explanation of the origin of life?  Is it actually a competing scientific theory?\n\n \n\nThe answer is, unequivocally, no.\n\n \n\nFor a start, intelligent design has no positive evidence in favor of their ‘theory’.  Intelligent Design advocates attempt to present evidence by pointing out supposed flaws in evolutionary theory – as though there was a legitimate dichotomy to choose from. \n\nAn expert biologist who was giving testimony during yesterday’s trial said the following in an MSN’s article: \n\n”Under questioning from American Civil Liberties Union attorney Witold Walczak, Miller said he wasn’t even sure that Behe had done research on intelligent design.\n\n“I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that says we have positive evidence for design,” he said.”[2]\n\nThis is further corroborated by the utter lack of attempts to submit papers for peer review by creationists:\n\n \n\n“The priorities of creationism are politics and religious evangelism. Science is not very important to creationists in the first place. The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of sixty-eight journals, only eighteen out of an estimated 135, 000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism (Scott and Cole 1985). \n\nIn the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education creationism trial, the creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.”[3]\n\n \n\nAside from lack of positive evidence, there is a bigger problem here.  One that is ignored by creationists and one that ultimately shows intelligent design to be nothing more then an appeal to magic – which, needless to say, doesn’t constitute a ‘scientific theory’.\n\n \n\nWhat is a scientific theory?  According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory, in the context of biology, is: \n\n \n\n“A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional