whats ur point of view on evolution versus intelligent design?
372207
the probability of materials required for the first cell on earth to come together randomly is much greater than ONE in 10 raised to the power of 40, which as any mathematician will tell u, is considered a practical impossibility. \n  believing in evolution is like believing that these tall skyscrapers around us formed due to a random assembly of construction materials on their own.
415158
Islam agrees with Both.... God is The Creator, and He is also Evolver. these are one of the attributes of God in islam. Whereever there is a Creation, He is "The Creator", Whereever there is an Evolution, He is "The Evolver"\n\nIt depends on which evolution you are talking about .>>>> Islam does not believe that humans have been evolve from monkeys??? \n\nThis evolution is not a fact. thats why it is called as "darwins THEORY of evolution"\n\nIslam belives that God created the whole universe... and we know ,, that after big bang there is a continues evolution in the universe. God says in Quran that first human being was "Adam" , and he was a complete man. Islam believes that "God is also the evolver">>> and we know ,, that when child borns,,, he is not able to sit properly ,, and evolution of his body does takes place. and child grows up. whereever you see,, there is a design in teh evolution... because there is a designer behind that. i.e GOD ALMIGHTY. ... GOD IS THE CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF ALL THAT EXIST,,,, God makes that child to grow up. SO! WHERE EVER THERE IS A CREATION... GOD IS THE CREATOR,, WHEREEVER THERE IS AN EVOLUTION. GOD IS THE EVOLVER. \n\nTHESE VERSES OF QURAN MIGHT HELP YOU..hope this is clear to you\n\n\n30:27 God begins the process of creation; Then repeats it; and For him it is most easy. Yusaf Ali \n\n24:45 And God created from water every living creature. Some of them walk on their bellies, some walk on two legs, and some walk on four. God creates whatever He wills. God is Omnipotent.
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?
1082757
Most scientists now believe in intelligent design. Because of the new discoveries on DNA etc. they have rejected the evolution theory.
197085
The idea that the world didn't come about by chance and evolution, at least not the way we think about it: ID says it was designed intelligently. \n\nMost science doesn't like to explain why things happen, just how. ID is trying to make God the 'why'. It's one last chance to make sure our kids come out of school with no idea at all how the world works, ensuring America's place in the world.
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.
344303
Politically, evolution is winning, despite the fact that we have a freakin crazy religious Republican party (don't get me wrong, the freakin crazy atheist wing of the Democratic party is no better). "Intelligent design" is not whats being taught in schools... science classes are meant to teach science, not pseudo-religious nonsense.\n\nI was never taught "intelligent design" or "creationism" in my science classes in Texas and Louisiana, two of the most conservative places in the country, so I'd say evolution is winning politically.
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.
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
500625
Evolution is not wrong.  tyvm
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.
22560
They only briefly touched on intelligent design in my classes. mostly the focus was on evolution. \n\nPersonally i believe in a mix between the two. a hybrid if you will. i absolutely believe that God created all living creatures and specific species. i also believe that He gave all species the ability to adapt slightly to accommodate differences to their specific environment. this is what Darwin believed in as well. never did he state that he believed that man came from ape, or dinosaurs originated as fish. he believed in a hybrid, and others distorted his theories!
159591
Do you mean "Is evolution in contradiction to Genesis (the Biblical version)?"?  If so, they are not in competition.  You can believe in creation and evolution.  Evolution is the change in alelle frequency in a population over time.  It has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.  That is a matter for abiogenisists to worry about.  Evolution works no matter what the origin of life actually is.
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!!!!
1020485
It sounds as though you have been fooled by the\n"intelligent design" idea.  This says that there are\nthings that are "irreducibly complex" so that they\ncouldn't have evolved because all the parts have\nto be there or they wouldn't work.  Therefore any-\nthing irreducibly complex must have been created\nbecause it couldn't have evolved.\n\nUnfortunately, there is no proof that there is anything that is irreducibly complex.  The usual \nexamples given have turned out NOT to be so.\nFurthermore irreducible complexity, if it exists at\nall, would be a sign of poor design.  A good\ndesign has fail-safes built into it so the whole thing\ndoesn't break down if one tiny part fails.
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
568570
The fact that evolution is a theory that makes sense and that has evidence that supports it.\n\nCreationism is an irrational belief of those who are afraid of science and do not wish to get in their any more information than  "god created and controls everything, that is all i need to know", personally i think shows weakness of mind.  Creationist thinking has no way to even theorize how "god", "heaven", "hell", etc. might exist, while evolution has facts that supports it.