Why do people think intelligent design is different from creationism. They're both total psudoscience and BS.
457955
I think -- I hope -- that since last December when the Dover decision was rendered, more people have become aware of the fact that there's no difference between classic creationism and "intelligent design."  And that they are, as you say, total BS.\n\nIt's a pity this lesson now has to be paid for by the taxpayers of the Dover school district.
120182
I believe in creation, because I believe there is more scientific evidence to support it. The theory of evolution goes against all known science that we have accepted so far, such as the second law of thermodynamics. Try doing some open minded research on that one, it's pretty clear that evolution can't happen. Also, every evolutionist that I have ever talked to about evolution could not just sit down and discus their theory like true scientists. Instead, I have been called names such as "extremist" and "fundamentalist Christian" (I never meantioned religion or my beliefs, it was assumed), I have also been made fun of, and so on. But I have never been given the chance to really examen the theory. I really believe it's because there is not as much evidence as they say there is. I also believe there is a lot of evidence to support creation. I mean, come on, half of the evidence gathered for evolution could just as eaisly be interpreted to support creation, but that goes against mainstream science, so it is rejected. Trust me, I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I don't believe in evolution here, there are too many. But my suggestion to you is to do some research, and be open minded about it. If evolution has more evidence, go with it, and the same with creation. If God created the world, there will be evidence, we just need to find it. So do some research, there are a lot of good books and websites on the topic (watch out, there are a lot of really bad ones too that say nothing but lies on both sides). Two good ones are www.talkorigins.org (for evolution) and www.trueorigin.org (for creation, and some great responses to talkorigins.com). Good luck, and have fun:)
72549
I too am shocked at the amount of misunderstanding and especially the amount of animosity. I know many esteemed scientists (including anthropologists and geologists) that have no problem being religious and believing in evolution. If you search the internet you will find many websites giving completely non-factual descriptions of how istopic dating works and using the small amount of uncertainty to claim it refutes all sorts of science. I have even seen attempts at disproving the sedimentary record of the Grand Canyon using this. Never mind that these self-described experts have no qualifications to evaluate these things. In my opinion they are motivated by greed and not altruism. Debunking science seems to have become a cottage industry for what I consider pseudo-religious crackpots. \n\nI think the source is a recent trend as I don't remember this hostility in the 1970's or 1980's. There are now television programs that are done professionally and broadcast daily (TBS) that try to refute all sorts of science using PhD's of theology to describe why carbon dating doesn't work, and even to refute things like dinosaur trace fossils by citing the rate of diagenesis in carbonate rocks. There is a constant problem in Texas where the creationists try to remove and destroy fossils whenever a new location is found. \n\nThe mainstream media doesn't help because the reporters and editors appear to be poorly educated in science. I recently watched a CBS Sunday Morning news piece comparing evolution and intelligent design and to my horror they constantly referred to both as scientific theory- effectively equating them as equal in status to millions of viewers. They hardly even mentioned that ID is not science and that it will never qualify as scientific theory. \n\nThere seem to be so many people who never learned the scientific definition of a theory that it becomes easy to confuse the public by implying that anything labeled as a theory is only a conjecture, and I think with this weakness that far too many people decide evolution can be dismissed as unreliable and unproven. I almost wish science would create a new terminology to replace the word 'theory' in order to clear up this semantic confusion. \n\nI have been very impressed by the magnitude of this problem by watching Yahoo Answers. As a former science teacher I am very disappointed that at least part of it seems to come from many young participants. I had hoped they were getting a better education in science, and at the very least had learned better reasoning skills.
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.
216155
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.51\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.51\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 196663\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."50\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.51\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:  \n  • Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n  • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n  • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.51 \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.51 \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.51\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
396923
Creationism is based in religion, but there is scientific backing..  The scientific evidence for it is called Intelligent Design and offers a great deal of evidence for a creator.  "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe give a great scientific refutation of macro-evolution (species into species evolution).  If science is the search for truth then all avenues must be explored.  I'm a creationist and a scientist, the best science I've seen supports a creator.  Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution have major flaws and gaps, how did the information in living beings come about.  When we see an ordered room, machine, book, etc. we know an intelligent agent was at work.  Same in nature.  If evolution didn't create things, then there was a creator.  As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true."
430259
I used to think it was enjoyable making fun of creationists.  Their ideas are so wacky, and they are almost completely ignorant of any scientific advance of the past 50 years.  But after a while you realize people like that are just going to believe what they want to believe.  I think it's interesting that when it comes to ANY other branch of science (medicine, computers, genetics, etc.) religious people have no problem accepting science.  ONLY when science contradicts their own unfounded beliefs (creationism) do religious people challenge science.
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!
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.
1112493
The answers you're getting really crack me up.\nThe level of ignorance displayed about religion and science here is laughable.\nBiologists (as in the serious professionals) explain the fact of evolution with the theory of Natural Selection.  This is not a cosmological theory; it merely attempts to explain the observable world around us.  The theory is completely silent on the origins of life.  Science is patently ignorant of the supernatural (by definition).  Religion, by definition requires faith in a higher order that is outside the physical world that science is studying.\nIf Faith can't withstand science then there is something lacking in the faith.  Never try to explain God with science (it makes god testy).  Likewise, do not deny science with religion (that's just freakishly fundamentalist).\nThanks for the entertainment.
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."
1034844
Science does NOT state that non-believers are 100% right! There have been and currently are plenty of scientists that have proved that creation is real. You do know that Darwin/big bang are theories right? You are familiar with the definition of theory correct? IF you answered yes, than you must know also that 97% of scientists world wide CANNOT explain how the eye was formed and they have admitted that there is virtually no way that it could have evolved right?
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.
585320
Intelligent Design is basically a 'god of the gaps' argument. The basic claim is that there are structures that are 'irreducibly complex' and so show outside design. The problem is that the examples given are NOT irreducibly complex! The authors of ID just aren't smart enough to figure out the mechanism. The key point to note is that an ancestral process doesn't have to do the same thing the modern process does or to have all the steps of the modern process.\n\nFor example, the blood-clotting cascade is often sited as being irreducibly complex even though we know that other animals have simpler versions that work reasonably well for them. By doing comparative studies, it is even possible to figure out what the evolutionary mechanism was for the process. Similar considerations happen with bacterial flagella, eyes, and other supposedly irrecubily complex things.
366809
Another question is: How many creationists have NEVER read anything about evolution except negative propaganda? \n\nThis creationist VS evolutionist debate reminds me of gallelio and medievals when men were prosecuted for heresy for saying such things as how the world wasn't the center of the universe and earth orbited the sun!  I tend to belive most creationists don`t know about that too !!\n\nP.S. isn't it funny that one of the things both christian and muslim fantaics totaly agree with each other about, and use the exactly the same arguments to prove is the falasy of the concept of evolution and the obvious correctness of creationism? :)
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
509868
I never heard that story, it strikes me as contrived bollox anyway, but no, it makes no difference.   Anyone that thinks it matters is searching desperately for something to substantiate that anti-intellectual horror: creationism.  Science works because it outlasts every individual scientist, to be tested and refined again by the next generation of open minded clever people.  Evolution has, er, evolved quite a lot since Darwin's time, and many of the puzzles left by him have been solved.   If Newton had recanted, apples would still fall to the ground.