Is Intelligent Design a valid theory?

Question

Though this is a very ominous question, I want your thoughts. I support evolution by most standpoints, however, I always keep my mind open. If there was some intelligent design, what is our purpose? We've seen the universe and it is very big. Why Earth? Why Us? Does it seem more likely that we really are a coincidence?

Answer 1

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it seeks to end scientific discussion. It says "Well... we know this much from years of empiricle thinking and scientific research, but that's as far as we need to go. This will be our final answer : God did it. No further need to explore."

Science should be layered. Each question should lead to another, more complex query. Intelligent design seeks to end that. It is religion in a lab coat. No one's trying to force Quantum Physics into the Baptist church, and yet Evangelicals are trying to make their faith into science (which I find an affront to both science and God).

As for us (the Earth) being a coincidence that has happened only once, no one has ever said that. Keep in mind that we can't even truly assertain whether there's other life in our SOLAR SYSTEM, let alone the universe. We haven't been out there. We haven't even collected samples and brought them back here by robot. We've only gone as far as the moon with actual humans and Mars by robot probe. AND Mars has shown promise that, yes, there was some life there at one time.

We've never even clearly SEEN a planet outside our solar system. Each star is a sun. For all we know, there are billions upon billions of inhabited planets out there beyond our reach and statistically it's highly probable. Intelligent design embraces the premise that our creator made us and no one else. That's why it is a failure as a theory. It doesn't scrutinize itself.

Answer 2

Intelligent Design assumes a designer. As the others above stated, without empirical evidence of a designer, this is a theory with no proofs. Mathematically, what is a theory with no proofs? Therefore, the Theory of Intelligent Design is a theory only in popular or common use, which makes it an opinion.

Religion or faith have a purpose in society and life, but should not be labeled as "theory" for purposes of factual teaching or study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Now, as to your other questions, regarding our purpose here on Earth and whether or not all earthly happenings have been a coincidence...that is a matter yet to be completely set out in fact.

Doesn't mean it won't happen...you simply may not be around when all the facts are known. The universe is a pretty large area, so it may take a while. ; )

Answer 3

Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory. It is not based on evidence (pointing out "holes" in another theory is not support), it is not testable, and it has no predictive utility. These are the key requirements of a scientific theory.

That said, this does not necessarily mean that there is no "intelligent designer." It just means that the question of the existence of a supernatural deity falls outside the realm of science. The reason why Intelligent Design should not be taught alongside evolution in the classroom is simply that it is not science.

Answer 4

I won't attack evolution, yet i will say that if identification isn't technological know-how, neither is evolution. however the 1st think of you will desire to alter on your strategies is that identification is creationism. they are completely particularly some issues. they might agree on some factors, yet they at the instant are not a similar. identification is technological know-how, and makes use of the scientific technique. of path, evolution believers do a similar subject you declare identification proponents do. no remember what they see, it continuously seems to be like evolution inflicting it. They on no account say that evolution could no longer try this, it relatively is purely continuously assumed. in case you like a sturdy e book on why identification is technological know-how, examine the only indexed below. Please do no longer tell me you will no longer as a results of fact the author lies, as i will say a similar subject pertaining to to the authors you have confidence. in case you relatively need to renowned what identification is all approximately, and why evolution can't face up to a similar scrutiny, examine the e book. additionally, identification does not attack something. it relatively is purely searching for layout in nature. It has no longer something to do with faith or introduction, notwithstanding it is of a similar opinion that a writer would desire to be available. notwithstanding, it has no concept who the writer is. it relatively is purely as valid a technological know-how as forensics, opposite engineering, SETI and cryptology. the only difference is they are employing the technological know-how to biology, which makes some human beings uncomfortable. purely when you consider which you do no longer purely like the a threat implications of something, does not make it non-technological know-how. Evolution additionally has metaphysical implications, yet no person seems to have a topic with that. i can't do the question justice in this small area, however the e book i discussed provides you with a extra complete answer. thank you for the considerate question. Oh, and every time you hear somebody announcing something derogatory approximately identification, purely word that to evolution, and you will see why it relatively is purely projection.

Answer 5

Well... one thing to keep in mind is that we got to the idea of evolution through science - which means, look at the data and then go from there. Not, apply God to science because we're used to him and don't want science to edge him out.

My dad works with space stuff, and I think just about everybody at his work (engineers, physicists, people like that) are pretty much sure that there's other life out in the universe somewhere.

I'm and atheist and all about science... but, hey, it still seems like a valid theory to me! The universe is pretty crazy...

Answer 6

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Answer 7

Its the only theory that makes sense

Its a scientific FACT...if the Earth were only a few, minute, little degrees closer to the sun than it is, the planet would be too hot to support the life that is here now....a slight few degrees away and we would be the ice planet Hoth.

How did the earth wind up the size(diameter, density and so on) it is and the sun the size it is(same as before; and sizes of the masses also dictate gravitational pull) and the two bodies placed in motion around one another and the distances apart remain stable and in precisely, exactly in the proper distances to maintain perfect temperatures, gravitational pull (weight of objects on the earth's surface) so that all the diversity of life that we know of on this planet flourishes.

I find any other explanation besides an intelligent design extremely hard to believe. I'm to think all these elements ( possibly millions or even billions of things in just the right amounts and in relation to one another and in right sequence)all just happened by a freak coincident of events, all on their own.
Please....its just not possible. The mathematical probablity is so remote it can just be dismissed.

Answer 8

While ultimately all human belief is faith-based, ID fits known evidence much better than Darwin's model.

To understand evolution you have to see science as a philosophy, which many scientists (especially evolutionists) refuse to do.

Science is an attempt to define the cosmos in terms of itself. Therefore, science of origins is logically an attempt to explain the origin of the cosmos in terms of itself. In other words, science ASSUMES self-creation in its philosophical parameters. This is why science makes no legitimate attempt to question Darwin.

ID is really only valid in conjuction with some form of divine revelation (i.e. the Bible). When postulated as a stand alone theory, on the basis of pure reason, its just as silly as Darwinism.

Answer 9

The problem I have with intelligent design is that anyone can come up with their own version of how the world was created and who created it.It's all relative to whatever book you happen to think sounds the best for your own purpose of belief.But it makes no scientific reason and has no foundation.It is only a man made invention to explain the ultimate question of why by answering with a who.

Answer 10

ID is an unsupported asertion based on religious belief. Since religious beliefs are matters of opinion, you can figure out just where ID sits in all this.

Hint: Right down there with the Apollo Hoax people and the Planet X/Nancy Lieder crowd.