Intelligent design vs Evolution?

Question

Isnt it logically to conclude that it takes a intelligent being to create the following:

Space Rocket
Laser Beam
Computer components
Fake heart
And other things similar

Then why wouldnt it take a intelligent designer to make the following:

Cell
Air
Super Nova
Earth

Your thoughts...

Answer 1

You do have a point. However the problem is we can't really confirm if the 2nd group is made by an intelligent being.

For example, a space rocket would have markings on it that would prove that an intelligent being made it. But it would be hard to find any markings on an air molecule. I suppose God leaves no trace.

We are able deduce the purpose of a artificial heart which would prove that an intelligent being made it but how would one know the purpose for a Super Nova? I suppose God is beyond our comprehension.

The main problem is that we have no way to test for the existence of God. And if we cannot test for it, we cannot confirm it.

Answer 2

Concerning the debate going on about intelligent design and evolution: is it possible that the final answer about which of these two seemingly opposite ideas is correct could simply be yes?

With one position firmly held by the believers and the other just as fearlessly defended by the non-believers, if you happen to be in a position somewhere near the middle, it does not look all that complex. From this position, you wonder why either-or has to be the answer.

If you believe that some higher being created the universe by intelligent design, what more elegant and intelligent design could there have been than a self-regulating system that continually checks its own errors and makes its own corrections in mid-stream as an integral part of the process.

This all seems quite logical to me although it probably won’t satisfy the believers because they are afraid to see any truth other than the one they have been told to believe in. Inversely it certainly won’t satisfy the non-believers because it leaves them stuck with a god that they are so obviously terrified of.

To sum up this view from the center, it might be most easily be explained by saying perhaps the designer was intelligent. Problem is, the designer was likely so intelligent that those seeking to prove that it is intelligently designed may be incapable of ever understand it well enough to see it for the elegant self regulating design that it has always been.

The nonbelievers will be similarly handicapped due to the internal terror the have about the idea that there may be a God. Neither side being able to leave their entrenched position for fear they may have to admit they were wrong. While the rest of us stand by trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. Personally I don’t think anyone is wrong, I just feel both sides are about half right.

Answer 3

It's reasonable to conclude that a watch found on a beach was created by a person because we have copious evidence that watches are made by humans all the time. We know there are watchmakers, we know how they do it, we know what materials they use, we know why they do it.

We don't have such evidence for, or experience with, the making of universes. We see that by following a few simple ways that nature behaves we can get, without interference, great complexity. It happens all the time in chemistry. So there's reason to believe that a few basic conditions at the beginning of the universe could lead to the complexity we see around us. But we don't know if any universes have ever been created, we don't know how they would be, we don't know why they would be, etc. So the "something made it" answer raises far more questions than it purports to answer. Of course ID fans don't apply their own logic, since they don't say the even more complex creator also had to be created.
Until such time that we can prove that any of the things you mention (cells, air, earth, supernova) can't have come about naturally there's no reason to give up the scientific inquiry and apply vague, problematic supernatural answers that really answer nothing.

Answer 4

I argue the intelligence of many a Scientist. They have tool using ability, big whoop. It's possible that an I.D. was involved, as much as it is possible that they were not. Now, many scientists right now are putting RNA together using just clay, water, air and heat. Pretty neat, no? They think this may lead to DNA, then to an actual organism!! Whether "playing God" is truly intelligent, I'll leave up to you. The problem with I.D. is that you cannot divorce religion from it. There are no "proofs", only "faith". If we can't tell how we got from point A to point B, the explanation is "God did it". In science, if we can't prove it, we try again til we can. While, I.D. vs Evolution has been a Chritians versus the world debate, I'd like to take it a step further. I want it to be taught from the theory of the Great One that made my Native American ancestors. Or perhaps the Hindu Gods, the Japanese Gods, or even Viking Gods!!! Why does it have to be Judeo-Christian? Where is the proof that He's involved?

With that being said:
A scientist goes up to God and says, "So long, God! You're not needed anymore. We can do all that you can, so why don't you take a vacation?"
God says, "You can't do all that I can."
The scientist says, "Yep. We can even make a Man out of Clay."
God says, "Let's see it."
The scientist starts gathering clay to show up God.
"Hold on" , God says, "Get your own clay."

Answer 5

Great point - because man has been able to manipulate the chemicals around him to create objects, then this must mean that God has done the same thing....

Nice try you pious fool. However, an artifact is not the same as a building block. When broken down to its basic form, all things are nothing more than chemical reactions.... So, your answer is NO, it is not logical. It is moronic to conclude this. If I was to think the same way, then I would have to assume that I am a God, seeing as I am able to create feces out of vegetable matter....

Answer 6

I suppose it takes an intelligent designer to make feedback in an amplifier converge onto a single note as well?

If you want to actually understand rather than simply propogating childish analogies, try reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkin. There's no way to read that book and come away still believing life requires an intelligent designer.

Answer 7

Did it take intelligent design to create the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup? No, that happened when some duffus carrying an open jar of peanut butter walked around the corner and crashed into another dude carrying a big bar of milk chocolate.

Answer 8

Teach intelligent design in Sunday school all you want. But it has no place in a science class because it is not science.

Scientific theories must be:
Testable, Observable, Repeatable, Fasifiable
ID is none of these. You cannot perform experiments on ID, it offers nothing and provides no further answers or knowledge of any kind.

ID is not science, and it would be unconstitutional (because of the separation of church and state) to teach it in schools.

Answer 9

Because these things can arise without need of a designer.

Besides, they are far from perfect. Wouldn't a perfect designer design perfect objects?

A supernova is a star that explodes because it burned all its hydrogen too quickly (oops!)

Cells contain DNA which is filled with codes for all kinds of nonsense proteins, which fortunately do not get expressed.
Would a perfect designer include amino-jibberish written in invisible ink?

Why did a perfect designer design tapeworms? How about a malaria virus.. do you see perfection at work there too?

Answer 10

Nope. Some are man-made and some are found in nature. The planet and the universe are far from perfect, or even intelligent, they display the characteristics of randomness and entropy, so if there is a designer, he/she/it must not be too intelligent. (why do I have an appendix?)