Consider a random-looking sequence of one million digits from 1 to 6. This sequence could have been generated using a computer, which generates a pseudo random sequence according to a predetermined mathematical formula. This sequence is not really random, but it appears random. This exact same sequence could have been generated by actually tossing a die one million times. There is no way to know the difference.
Similarly, one cannot determine whether life was a result of intelligent design or chance.
So, why are you people wasting your time arguing about that which cannot be determined?
2006-10-10 03:41:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It can be determined, just as there are significant tests for determining PRNGs from TRNGs. Look up ent, rngtest, and diehard (diehard, especially, is world renouned for its ability to peg PRNGs, and rngtest runs the tests required by NIST document FIPS 140-2).
So then, how to determine the difference between IT and Evolution. IT combines biology and geology in a way that is wholely unscientific, for one thing. But since it does, let's set aside evolution for a moment and just look at the geological side of IT.
IT says the world is young. Geology has thousands upon thousands of experiements, theories, researches, etc... that establish conclusively that the world is 4.5 billion years old or so. Sooooo... even without contrasting IT and Evolution, we can see that IT is false.
2006-10-10 03:45:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is a process that describes how life has changed through time.
Intelligent Design (which can be consistent with evolution) is a belief system that says why life came to be.
Asking this question is like asking "what is the difference between the mathematical laws that govern gravity and the reason that gravity exists?"
2006-10-10 04:22:36 · answer #2 · answered by Ranto 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, we know the origin of intelligent design... it's from an old book of middle eastern mythology.
Evolution comes from tried and tested scientific research, and is accepted as fact by the scientific community, regardless of what people in the "mythology" camp like to believe.
That's the difference.
2006-10-10 03:55:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
But evolution isn't "chance", so I don't see that your argument applies.
Also, evolution meets the criteria for science, I.D. does not. Yet I.D. proponents want their fluff taught in science courses.
Now, you do have a point that anything that is explained by evolution CAN be explained by I.D. In fact, ANYTHING AT ALL can potentially be explained by the idea. This is the primary reason I.D. isn't science: there is no possible data that can count AGAINST it. It's unfalsifiable.
2006-10-12 09:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by Zhimbo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dr. James Coppedge, director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California
- applied laws of probability of a single cell, protein, and gene coming into existence by chance
- computed a world including the earth’s crust and entire array of elements were available. He then had all the amino acids combine at 1.5 trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the probabilities, he found that a cell would take 10,119,841 years, a single protein molecule 10,262 years.
2006-10-10 03:48:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your example is simplistic. We're not talking about a 1 million digit number appearing out of nowhere. We're talking about a few dna links, then some more, then some more. It's a progression.
2006-10-10 03:49:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably because both sides think it can be determined. Even most ID proponents admit to 'micro evolution'. They simply refuse to acknowledge the accumulation of such 'micro' changes.
2006-10-10 03:47:47 · answer #7 · answered by lenny 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Really the only difference is whether evolution happened on accident or on purpose.
So essentially the argument isn't really about how we came to be, it's really an argument of "Does God exist or not?" in disguise.
2006-10-10 03:45:43 · answer #8 · answered by daisyk 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Same difference as Psuedoscience vs. Science.
2006-10-10 03:45:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
another non question posing as a question; ie;" consider a random looking sequence, bla bla,,,,which generates a pseudo random,,bla bla......your showing your excellence at language, but, unfortunately your insufficiency, with regard to aguments, and i'm being kind.
roll a dice you wanker, (make a real study) then get back to me, ok.
2006-10-10 03:59:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋