If Intelligent Design is better than Evolution, then how does ID explain...?
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
639862
A belief in intelligent design implies faith in a higher power.  It's centered around faith... not empirical evidence.  Many of the ideas associated with intelligent design simply cannot be proven or disproven, and therefore it's not science. That's not to say it's right or wrong, it's just impossible to test.\n\nI read an interesting argument for intelligent design recently, however, which involved the ideas of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The second law of thermodynamics essentially states that the entropy (randomness/disorder) of the universe is always increasing, and can never be decreased by ANY process.  This seems to counteract the ideas behind pure evolution.  If you think about the "primordial soup" concept -- which involves all the necessary chemicals for life "coming together" to form relatively complex biological systems -- there's a certain degree of discrepancy.  This would rely upon the more orderly systems being favored over the less orderly chemicals (a decrease in entropy/disorder).  This contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  \n\nAnyway, it's interesting stuff.  You might spark some healthy debate with this, a lot of people have different opinions... I like it.
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 ".
172289
Evolution wins the logical argument 100,000 odds to 1. After almost a million years of existence, human life finally has the tools to esplain its own existence & put life into perspective. It is epic...spectacular in its implication...beautiful in its eloquence... science at its truest... \nIntelligent design is a desperate attempt by the clergy and theologians all of whom have had the rug pulled out from underneath them by evolution (science in general), to keep a foot in the door... to retain whatever credibility & salvage whatever pride they can... from a bad situation that is only going to get worse (unless they succeed in getting all science education banned) . However, all they have had to show for their efforts thus far, has been more of the same old & stunted mentality... a sad amalgam of pseudoscience & religious dogma.\nEvolution will take its pretty time to permeate the wider human conciousness...if history teaches us anything it is that people can be mulish, but more enduring has been the message that we sometimes take a longer and more convoluted route that is necessary (some times many thousands of years late) but the end point is the same...the truth wins.
299471
ID has managed to turn creationism into pseudo-science, it so craves the endorsement of the scientific community, \n\nFortunately the pseudo-scientists who came up with the pseudo-scientific hypothesis they call ID have only managed to garner total rejection and scorn from the scientific community.
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!
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.
1153626
This point is terrific.\n\nIt's why intelligent design is ridiculous and absurd.\n\nWhen I hear people say they believe in theistic evolution I have to say to them grow balls pick one.
681839
There is no need to replace evolution as there is no evidence that evoultion is in any way contradictory to reality or lacking in predictive power.\n\nBTW: Shouldn't this be in biology?
615396
creation or evolution?
79540
Creationism by our Creator. And the evolution theory would be okay if it werent contradictory to scripture... The bible says He created everything according to its kind.  See Genesis 1:20.  Also if we evolved, why are we not stil evolving?
629873
Because it's supported by a preponderance of evidence, and is generally accepted within the scientific community, not to mention the minor detail that it's true.\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\n2. Microevo
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."
659046
I call that intelligent design.
963299
"Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer is the best one I've seen yet. It will more than likely contain everything you need.\n\nMichael Shermer, btw, if you're unfamiliar with who I'm talking about, is the founder of the Skeptics Society, who publishes Skeptic Magazine.
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
136250
Intelligent design states that the species we view and their properties have to be caused by some outside agency, not the product of natural laws. They have to be the result of direct tampering. \n\nThe main argument that intelligent design uses is "irreducible complexity"; that is, the species we see are too complex to have been created by natural means. This argument is not at all new. For example, it is very similar to the arguments of William Paley. \n\nAlthough in intelligent design, the proponents claim to be open to panspermia (life from outer space) and other ideas, probably more than 99% of them are in favor of the designer being a deity, and the deity intervening in nature using supernatural means.\n\n\nIntelligent design was invented as an attempt to get around the US supreme court's injunction about teaching religion in science classes.