Why do some people still believe in 'intelligent design' instead of evolution?

Question

Some people will point out that man-made objects are clearly designed and made by intelligent minds, and argue by analogy that living organisms therefore must also be designed - usually citing the complexity and organisation in living organisms as evidence of that intelligent design.

Let's think about what intelligence means. I think it means the ability to come up with lots of different ideas, different possibilities, different solutions to problems, and figure out what works best. When we are babies, our actions are random and unplanned - we gradually learn by trial and error how to move, how to get what we want, how to avoid getting hurt and so on. As adults, we have a lot of experience to draw on so we don't need to try everything out to know what will happen - the trial and error often goes on in our minds, but we still do it, even if a lot of it is automatic.

So, when someone designs something, they go through this trial and error process, some of it in practice and some just mentally, to decide what will work best for what they want to achieve - an attractive design, an effective product, a big profit, or whatever. The smartest people are the ones who have the most varied and original ideas, and are most successful at choosing the best ones.

Now, notice the similarity with evolution: Random genetic mutation provides the different possibilities, the different solutions, and unthinking natural selection determines what works and what does not - i.e. a mutation which allows the individual which carries it to more reproductively successful will tend to be preserved and proliferate in the population, and one which is disadvantageous will tend to be lost, simply because the individual is never born, or dies before breeding, or breeds less successfully.

So in both cases - human design and evolution - the same factors of variation and selection are at work. That's why both phenomena are capable of producing complexity, and that's also why (I suggest) some people mistakenly feel that intelligence must be involved in both cases.

Answer 1

you just have to look at the facts, because they show that evolution happened, not that god created us like we are today. its pretty much obvious, some people are just too wrapped up in god to realize that.

Answer 2

First, you must re-think random genetic mutation. Mutation has, and always been at its best - 'not neccessarily harmful' and at its worst - disadvantageous or even fatal.
Listen up! There are NO detectable positive mutations in humans today, nor have there been in the past.
Recent research has revealed literally tens of thousands of different mutations affecting the human genome, with a likelihood of many more yet to be characterized. These have been associated with thousands of diseases affecting every organ and tissue type in the body. The medical descriptions of many forms of inherited disease have a common theme: 80-90% of cases have affected individuals in the family tree, but the remaining cases are sporadic--the result of ever increasing numbers of new mutations. In all this research, not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.
Mutations continue to slowly harm us. Each generation has a slightly more disordered genetic constitution than the preceding one, and no amount of eugenics can reverse this process of decay. Gene therapy may mask the effects, but it will not reverse the underlying degenerative process.
A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish. The problem is like a large book, written with perfect grammar in the beginning, but with random letter substitutions introduced at an ongoing rate. The book will still be readable for some time, but it will eventually lose all sense. Just as the universe is projected to reach a state of maximum entropy, so also the human race is condemned to a degenerative death, not just as individuals, but as a whole.

The Christian hope stands as the only light in the darkness. Only the creative and regenerating work of Christ, as shown in His creation of all things (John 1:3), His miraculous healings, and in His resurrection from the dead, offers humankind true hope for the future.

Answer 3

The concept of Intelligent Design was created to disguise religion as science.
The obvious intent here was to circumvent and undermine the system so that religion could be taught in public schools under that guise.

I would suggest that those interested in the subject do a Google Search on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
It follows that having read the Open Letter to the Kansas Board of Education those who have also did any reading as to the validity of Intelligent Design will realise how ridiculous the idea is.

I also have a quote that I believe many will find interesting if they simply apply it to the idea and replace "Babel Fish" with anything used as an example with regards to Intelligent Design.


"The arguement goes something like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.'
'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't.
*QED."
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that.' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

*Latin/Quod Erat Demonstrandum: Which was the thing to be proved.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Douglas Adams.

Answer 4

I have been on both sides of the argument before I came to Christ and after. I tell you this for a very real that God had to create the universe, by fiat command, because there is not enough energy in the whole cosmos to do so! It is impossible for the universe to be its own creation or its own creator.

The nature of the universe is more complex than "intelligent design" can make them. There is so many complexiites to the universe that it requires mathematical precision that is so precise that for it to evolve someone had to build it like a great tinker toy or erector set, there is to much precision, in the universe. Yes there is randomness, but it is a growing state not a stable state, meaning that at one time there was not as much randomness as there is now. (you can disagree here but its your position over mine) We could argue over and over again and again about intelligent design but it all boils down to this:

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

if you believe the chicken came first then it was a product of God designing it to produce the egg that would develop into a mature creature to produce another egg and so on and so forth -

if however you believe that the egg came first then you believe that genetic variations along a very haphazard or even progressive line of development that the creature produced another egg different than its producer and that creature grew to maturity and produced something different still -

the bottom line is belief -

do you believe in omnipotent, omniscient, everpresent God to design the chicken

or you believe in randomness and some sort of intelligence to eventually by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that by randomness built an egg that eventually produced another egg that - etc etc. etc until you have one that produces a chicken who produces an egg that will grow into another chicken - why stop there! why not go on to produce the super chicken - cape and all - its the greatest fowl of all!

its the chicken-god!

Answer 5

"isn't a mutation like loosing extremely the puzzle?" No, on no account. A mutation happens while component to the genetic code variations, and that they take place each and every of the time. maximum of them are thoroughly independent. you likely have approximately 60-ninety single-base mutations that occurred for the time of the cellular meiosis that created the sperm and egg which at last became you. each and every so often mutations have an substantial result. each and every so often that result's detrimental, and each so often the result's useful. organic selection reasons the negatively impacting mutations to get chosen out of the inhabitants, mutually as useful ones tend to get exceeded on and at last replace into the dominant phenotype. "are not cells extra complicated than area shuttles? do not you think of they could choose a dressmaker?" In what experience are they extra complicated than an area holiday? How do you degree complexity? And at what threshold of complexity does something require a dressmaker? Is the dressmaker of cells extra complicated than the area holiday? if so, does that mean the dressmaker demands a dressmaker? See how that argument fails? the only distinction between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution (aka speciation) is time and scale. while 2 populations of a species are separated in diverse environments for long adequate, their genetic makeup variations (by using utilising "micro" evolution) to the element the place they are able to now not inter-breed. this is speciation, or "macro" evolution. different than no one in biology extremely differentiates them like that, by way of fact it is all one non-give up technique. how are you able to ask your self why human beings have self belief in evolution in case you do not even understand how evolution works?

Answer 6

I don't think it is believable that so many mutations would have produced beneficial results. I don't believe that life suddenly came from lifelessness. Nor that it instantly had the ability to reproduce or to utilize it's environment to draw nutrients. It seems an unlikely thing to happen by chance.

Answer 7

Actually contrary to the response there is very little if any evidance that evolution is true... as she suggested. In fact, there is much proof of the creation theory in comparison.

Absolute proof there is not for either hypothesis. The bottom line is one needs to put faith in either theory.

Life is way to complex to just happen though, in my opinion.

Answer 8

Can you honestly believe your family bloodline contains monkeys?
How is that water, which contains mammals and fish, freezes at 32 degrees, but yet the ice floats, unlike other liquids?
Why hasn't all the monkeys evolved, since they had the same opportunity to evolve?

Do you believe the watch I am wearing was by chance? The band crashed from a meteor ten years ago, the face came crashing from the shores of Africa, the springs was dumped from a migrating bird from South America, the metal casing came spitting out the volcano off the coast of Australia, all came to together in PERFECT WORKING ORDER, starting at the right time, and continues to this day.
NOW THAT takes a lot of faith.

Evolution is only a theory that cannot be proven.

Answer 9

Does it not seem odd to you that in the animal kingdom we have this VERY unique species called humans? Who stand out like a sore thumb?
Gen 1:27 And God created people in his image.

Answer 10

IDs say such complexity must be intelligently directed. I say, why such complexity? If god is all-powerful, why not just make everything out of animated amorphous stuff or plasma?