I need an essay on intelligent design and organic evolution comparison?
475937
There is an excellent resource regarding both.  But I agree with the idea that since ID isn't scientific, (As ruled by Judges Jones in the Kilmitzer vs Dover trial 2004), then it should be a tad bit one sided.\n\nCheck out the sources listed below for in-depth info.
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
264396
Great stuff going on right now having to do with developmental genes (like Hox genes).  You may know this as "Evo Devo" or evolutionary developmental biology.\n\nCheck out the book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," by Sean Carroll.  He also gives ideas for research and new fields, lots of peer-reviewed papers.\n\nI just read it this Fall, it was great.
1079667
I once wrote a compare and contrast essay on romaine lettuce and iceberg lettuce. It was actually quite interesting, and I hardly had to do any research! \nOther topics: apples vs. tomatoes, written book vs. audio book, laptop vs. computer, US vs. Iraq, pen vs pencil...just look around the room, pick any two objects, and write about them!
790568
I liked your question. I advice you to read the three articles I have linked below. They were written by me some time ago. \nhttp://www.geocities.com/johnkunnathu/essay-lessons-Adam-Eve.htm\nhttp://www.geocities.com/johnkunnathu/essay-The-story-of-a-story.htm\nhttp://www.geocities.com/johnkunnathu/story-Eden-Revisited.htm
443656
Aha, this is my passion.  You can look into the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  I think they're a group called Answers in Genesis.  If you want something more in-depth check out the book "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.  He interviews leading scientists (with extensive post-grad education) on a whole host of topics.  To hone in on strictly biology go for the Michael Behe book, "Darwin's Black Box."  The black box is the cell which Darwin thought was just a blob with a darker center.  He had NO idea that there was a super efficient little factory in there.  There's also a book called "Mere Creation."    If you buy the Lee Strobel book, he cites a ton of scholarly articles and books that you can get.  If you want me to list more, just say so.  God bless on your journey.  He definitely reveals Himself in creation.
229503
you should be able to find something in the links below... good luck with your paper
517959
Creation Science\nwww.answersingenesis.org\nwww.icr.org\nwww.creationworldview.org\nwww.creationists.org\nwww.drdino.com\n\nHope these help.
967639
http://www.practical-philosophy.org.uk/Volume4Articles/PlatoTheoryOfLove.htm\ncheck out that link.  And remember, don't plagarize.  Good luck on your paper!
356065
You could write about how McDonald's harming the Amazon http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_sc/brazil_greenpeace_mcdonald_s;_ylt=AniIHB_QG6WmcgZhHFCJ5.es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-\nOr you could write about how they just found a fish that shows how we became land animals.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_sc/landfish_fossil;_ylt=AiCnH27Kt.EACcRnJQpvRjus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-
202908
I'd say... Evolution.\nThis journal has been around since 1946 and was founded by some of the greatest evolutionary scientists of all time (the "fathers" of the New Synthesis)\n\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\n\nhttp://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=get-current-issue
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.
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
857145
Try this paper ...\nhttp://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Anucl-th%2F0403083
834840
There is an interesting and informative essay on biotechnology in wikipedia. The web address is listed below.\n\nHere is an excerpt that may be just what you are looking for:\n\n"Green biotechnology is biotechnology applied to agricultural processes. An example is the designing of transgenic plants to grow under specific environmental conditions or in the presence (or absence) of certain agricultural chemicals. One hope is that green biotechnology might produce more environmentally friendly solutions than traditional industrial agriculture. An example of this is the engineering of a plant to express a pesticide, thereby eliminating the need for external application of pesticides. An example of this would be Bt corn. Whether or not green biotechnology products such as this are ultimately more environmentally friendly is a topic of considerable debate."\n\nThe "green revolution" is driven by a greater perceived need for foods and for ecological balance  - and that is certainly a fascinating and long-term field of study.\n\nGood luck to you, in your studies, your music, and your sports.
240784
http://www.english.bham.ac.uk/staff/tom/teaching/howto/essay.htm
626675
Malthus. His essay entitled "An essay on the principle of population, as it affects the future improvement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other writers", written in 1798, was one of the sources for Darwin to develop his Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection. \nYou can read the essay here:\nhttp://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/malthus/popu.txt