Why do people think that intelligent design is science?

Question

It isn't. There is a glaring difference between intelligent design and science. Science changes as we gather more evidence to make our ideas more accurate. It begins with observation, and then proceeds to hypothesis, testing, and debate.

Intelligent design however, is very rigid, it begins with works of fiction, then proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and even torturing those who don’t believe it.

As you can see there is a big difference between science and intelligent design. So why do people still think intelligent design is a science?

Answer 1

They call ID a 'theory' and use that term to confuse people into thinking that makes it the same a scientific theory, which is of course an entirely different thing.

Answer 2

I can only hope to enlighten you, with a hypothesis.
We all create as the human race.
How do we create maybe because we in turn where created.
We are said to evolve from a monkey over the last 2.5 billion years or so, we are said to be evolve since life itself has existed on the earth.
If we were to evolve we would be much more evolved in body then the monkey.
We look at a monkey now and see it as it has always been.
They are perfect as we are also perfect (when it comes to creation).
A monkey does NOT evolve because as it did it would start to gain other body features then what it has now.
Such as six fingers or start to grow a third arm.
We might need eyes behind are heads but we will never get them.
We will never find the missing link because it does not exist.
We have 5 fingers and five toes.
5 scenes
Fingers, hands, wrists, arms, forearms, joints or shoulder that = 5 parts, we have them so perfect that they are each side of us.
Toes, feet, legs,thighs, joint or hip, once again we have 5.
All leading up to our heads where the 5 joints of each segment of us is controlled by the brain.
The start of all even the five senses.
That's one reason i don't belivein evolution.
If we create a metal being (robot) will it look at itself and wonder were did i come from the ground or was i created! Is that not science!

Answer 3

Science tries to answer the question "How did we all get here?" Of course, no one was around to see it actually happen, so based on the evidence people come up with two basic theories. Either bang, it just happened, or someone took time to design it. Given the incredible chances of evolution happening and the overwhelming lack of evidence for evolution, I'd say it's much safer to say that someone took time and put a lot of serious thought into the universe. Why don't you check out the Answers in Genesis foundation for some more info on the concept of Intelligent Design?

Answer 4

Your argument is poorly structured and doesn't prove your case.

You're correct that the scientific method begins with observation, which leads to the question..."Where are we seeing evolution taking place today?" We see cases of adaptation and "survival of the fittest" everyday...but the evolution of one species to another?

We have a "fossil record" but no transitional species...these are explained as "jumps" but they still do not demonstrate evolution, merely that there were a larger variety of animals at one time.

Stars and light are used to explain that the earth is ancient, yet a pulsar was recently discovered in a nova, based on it's distance, it should be several millions of years old, but based on it's pulsing pattern, it's only several thousand years old.

Looking at the lack of evidence for evolution, one could also say that it begins with with works of fiction; however, in an effort to maintain a reasonable discussion of the facts, I will simply say that it is a hypothesis.

Until someone is able to go back in time and see the actual beginning of this world, we will not have a confirmation of which theory of orgin is correct...we can only look at the evidence around us and continue to hypothesize based upon our observation, test the hypothesis and carry on with the scientific method from there.

To claim that one theory is absolutely correct is to revert to the same tactic used by the church when they claimed the earth was flat...it lacks credibility and only leads to ignorance.

Answer 5

They think that because their preachers tell them to and because the various non-biologists who push ID pretend to be biologists (or at least conveniently forget to mention that they don't know what they're talking about).

After the shelling ID takes from actual scientists, I almost find it hard to believe that the people who push it still believe half of what they say, unless they're even more dense than they look. Some might just be in it for the money. There's big money in telling lies these days.


Most of the tactics used by ID pushers are the sort of thing that work really well on the gullible and on those who just haven't been trained to think scientifically. For instance, pulling up quotes, calling people "liberals," turning "evolution" into a slur, and generally framing it as a political debate rather than a scientific issue. They have to do that, of course, since ID is politics, not science.

Politics is almost as good as religion for getting people to shut their brains off and shout their slogans at the top of their lungs, so ID has made its progress by advancing politically. Notice how if you're a Christian and you accept evolution, you're likely to be labelled a "liberal" by quite a few people, even if you're a hardcore capitalist from the Prague school of economics (going, of course, by the modern definition of "liberal" as used by the right wing today).

Answer 6

Where do you think ID came from? It is not a creationist theory. We think is is a major step in the right direction-but too weak. It still leaves room for evolution. It was first mentioned by Albert Einstein. Most scientist of that day scoffed at it then. But now it is becoming very popular in the scientific community once again. Too many scientist find they can no longer support older evolutionary ideas that have never been evidentually supported.

Answer 7

Hi...

Most of us (meaning the Christians that I spend time with) believe that the problem is not so much that we disagree with Evolution or that ID is better. The problem is that Evolution is presented as "fact" when it is actually a "theory".

Now we can certainly argue the "facts" of Evolution just as much as we can argue the "facts" of ID but, either way, they are theories and should, thus, both be taught so that the student has all of the information to make an informed decision.


That's all.

Answer 8

clever layout is the inverse or antithesis of technology. In different words there are large aspects of evolution no longer waiting to be as we communicate defined however the outcomes that we see as we communicate are extraordinarily superior and hard. the belief is to no longer examine and coach a actuality or propose a concept as a foundation of examine yet merely state "that's no longer coach-in a position or explainable via technology ergo: clever layout. Or i don't be attentive to i do no longer comprehend as a result God. that's no longer a clean religious argument. clever layout is theology at superb

Answer 9

To get it in the schools legally... so that the Right Wing can begin programming children. We're headed back to the Dark Ages people, bring a flashlight.

Answer 10

And you think evolution is science? The only truth in evolution is microevolution. Everything else is false. I've never seen a cow turn into a whale.