Isn't intellligent design a way to support irrational religious theories?

Question

At the heart of it, we are still left with creationism. I choose the spaghetti monster.

Answer 1

Evolution is a scientific theory, conclusions based upon analysis of imperical evidence in existing life-forms, fossil remains, DNA comparisons, and other data.

Intelligent design may very well be a theory - but not a scientific one. Some scientists may support it - some scientists may very well support flat-earthers, too - but without something to base your conclusions on, it ain't science.

There's nothing wrong with organized religion and science having different conclusions, but you shouldn't represent one as the other. Religion is less about imperic, scientific truth than it is about spiritual, poetic truth - imaging if hardcore poetry fans were outraged at scientists for contradicting the line, "The fog comes on little cat feet."

Judeo-Christian religious truths were put together by people presumably doing the best they could under the traditions they had - but it wasn't science.

It wasn't math, either - according to the bible, Pi equals three.

The more one tries to attach literal, imperical truths to old scriptures, the more one is bound to be frustrated; people have had crises of faith trying to reconcile all the discrepancies in those works.

Answer 2

Of course it is. But try telling that to a creationist.

Here's "intelligent design" in a nutshell. "This development is much too complicated to have happened accidentally. God must have waved his magic wand to make it happen." Or, "we can't explain it, so it must be magic". A real scientific explanation isn't it? How can you have a rational debate with these people.

I believe in God. I believe he created the world subject to the laws of physics. That's faith. It isn't science. Science looks at those physical laws and analyzes them, looks for consistent explanations and tests theories with evidence. A theory passes a test when it can predict outcomes. If intelligent design (ID) was a science it could tell us how and when God is likely to intervene again.

There does not have to be a conflict between science and religion. But when religion starts claiming to be science that's when we have a problem. Like when Galileo was excommunicated for saying the earth revolved around the sun. What future would science have if they started teaching this ID rubbish in schools?

For every successful mutation there are millions of failures. How could an intelligent designer make so many mistakes? And how does ID explain evolutionary side effects, like our loss of the ability to manufacture vitamin C. I think we are one of only about three species on the entire planet to lose this ability. How intelligent was that?

Answer 3

Well yeah, but if you believe in a religion, it's theories are facts and theyre not irrational. If ur a skeptic, intelligent design wont make sense because our bodies have so many defects they could not be designed by an intelligent person, e.g. men loose their hair on the top of their head, it would be better if they kept the hair on top and lost hair on the sides so you could let the hair grow long and it would cover your bald scalp. The atheists should think up a theory called stupid design, that would make more sense.

Answer 4

There are problems with the large Bang, and creationists do have some selection perspectives on the remember. although, as with maximum medical uncertainties, there are different critiques even in the creationist community. My man or woman fashionable is Russell Humphries white hollow cosmology, which states, briefly variety, that area isn't countless and has an euclidian middle, that the creation of earth got here about someplace close to this middle, and that at this middle there turned right into a huge gravity nicely which acted relativistically to sluggish time to a crawl for gadgets close to that middle, as hostile to issues very faraway from that middle. using this theory, once ought to finish that the residual effect of the stretching out of the fabric of time-area contained in the creation adventure is what's causing the frequency shift of intergalactic gentle in course of purple, no longer organic speed, as required by the large Bang. Couple this with the very undeniable truth that redshift itself is now being puzzled, by non-creationist previous universe scientists, ideas you, as to if a doppler effect is the thanks to describe each and every of the talked about files. As merely one party, particle bridges will be considered between quasars and galaxies that, in accordance to the doppler clarification, should be too faraway from one yet another for such an effect. yet in the adventure that they are close, because the bridge exhibits, then 2 complications are solved. First, the talked about bridge turns into plausible. second, the ability of the quasar turns into lifelike for its length, because it truly is truly a lot closer than doppler theory helps in holding with redshift interpretation. for this reason, white hollow cosmology does provide a fashion to describe a number of those irregularities which aren't any further accessible below the large Bang theory. although, no longer even creationists regard white hollow cosmology as a finished theory. it truly is novel in that it does no longer take time as a consistent, yet as a relative function of the creation adventure. This opens opportunities which have not been area of the communicate, and that i imagine it truly is healthful technological awareness to save an open ideas.

Answer 5

intelligent design is a theory as much as evolution is. if we're trying to find out man's origin, i would think we should be open to all possibilities, rather than become dogmatically tied to one.

creationism is not the only alternative; but as a Catholic, Ive got to say that no matter what theory proves correct, I'll still belive that God was the primary cause.

Answer 6

Yes.

Intelligent Design has no predictive scientific value. It is in its entirety a criticism of evolution. It's creationism without the word "God" so that it can be taught in public schools.

Answer 7

Yes it is creationism repackaged, but the content and argument still remains the same.

Answer 8

"Intelligent" design is just creationism in a cheap suit.

Answer 9

Did someone find the missing link?

Answer 10

No it is not. Those are two different things. It is the Darwin fanatics that link the two. If you really are interested in irrational theories read Darwin and find the proof. Assuming you are young enough, you may find proof in 4 or 5oo years, but don't bet on it.