Creationists: How is it that Intelligent Design is science? If it is not, why do you want it in schools?

Question

You complain that Evolution doesn't make it through the test of the scientific method, which is absolutely false, but lets pretend for a second that evolution didn't make it through the scientific method. How exactly is it that Intelligent Design does? It isn't observable because we can't see any designer making it, we can't make experiments to it, there can't be any predictions made because the designer is unpredictable, we can't know even how many designers there are because it is a supernatural tihng nobody can explain. So why is it that you want this crap in classrooms? Sounds rather irresponsible to try to teach kids non-science in science classroms. If you have a problem with evolution, just try to have it removed from classrooms instead of trying to implement something flawed like intelligent design.

Answer 1

I often wonder if the Cave Man had eaten a Cow that was struck by lightening and made well done.

Answer 2

Well Darwin actually gave us a method to test intelligent design while trying to prove his theory. Intelligent design is being shamed across the nation as a tool of Christianity. Although many of the followers of ID are Christians, it is not exclusive to Christ being the designer.

Take for example thoroughbreds. Man takes two of the best animals in a species and breeds them. This gives us a more powerful and potent off spring. Intelligence at work

And sir, Evolution does not make it through the test of scientific method because no one has ever been able to produce any actual proof. Evolutionists ask us to "assume" in the first instance. Did you know that the odds of creating a cells flagellum through random mutations are 1 to 1 to 1 (with 40,000 zeros). That’s just a basic cell function. Can you believe odds like that? Biochemists are beginning to suspect more and more that these functions could not be done randomly. They most certainly would have to be guided by some intelligence.

Darwin predicted that we would get a new species through random mutations. ID believers do believe that species can be change within a very small range according to environmental circumstances. However, never has this ever created a new species. If all of the live on this planet came from random mutation and evolution we should have millions of transitional species. We have none. Not one. Every time someone claims that they have found one it is proven to be either a fake or a lie. In fact, the entire fossil record completely contradicts the theory of evolution, which is where we would find these so called transitional animals. The Cambrian period is the time in the fossil record that shows a literal explosion of all of the life we have on this planet and it happened in a very small period of time, cosmically speaking. It does not show a slow and measured evolution.

Evolutionists claimed that the reason that all of the life we know of today just starts to exist then is because the previous species did not fossilize do to their composition and the environment. The Chinese, however, have found pre-Cambrian fossils and samples and they amount to nothing more than sponges and worms, which, incidentally, due to the environment fossilize quite readily. The UCLA recently sued a school district for over $1 million in legal fees because a school teacher mentions nothing more than the pre-Cambrian fossils. He never mention ID, he never mentioned any god.

If you want to know the argument for giving EQUAL TIME to ID, which is factually more compelling than evolution considering there is historical proof that Jesus actually lived when evolution is disproved daily, I suggest reading the last 4 chapters of Ann Coulters latest book; Godless: the Church of Liberalism.

Evolution is more flawed than any other theory and yet lies and fake proof are still crammed down our childrens throats about it. The science of how things are designed however is very helpful.

Answer 3

Have you ever done any reserch yourself? Science leans way more on creationalism than evolution. Clearly in your question you do not agree with what I just said. Let me support my reasons, maybe you can even out the scale between "evolution is true because it looks correct."

In the book of Genesis is specifically explains that God created all the animals in the sea and air and land in different days. That proves against evolution biblically. Now, scientifically...

1) Where has macroevolution ever been observed? If an animals leg evolved into a wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg before it became a good wing? What about the arm, and the face, and the digestive track?

2) If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils? There's not just a "missing link" There a ten-mile long chain of missing link from only one stage to the next.

3) How could the first living cell begin?

4) Which came first: DNA, or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

5) The most scientific dating outbreaks and techniques state that the earth and the universe are young. One of which is that the sun is proven to shrink 5 feet every hour. If the earth is billions of years old, than the sun would have been large enough to engulf the first planet, and fry the earth like into a fireball. (This make-belief time period is the same that the earth is thought to have had it’s ice age.)

Also, don't get macroevolution (From monkey to human) confused with the proven theory, microevolution (From Dog to golden retriever, and to German Shepard, and the terrier, etc.)

Don't blind yourself to the greater evidence, that is, science toward christianity.

Answer 4

Brief answer is that I do not want evolution taught in schools for two reasons. One is that it does not have enough scientific proof to be taught as fact. If you are going to teach it, you should teach it as a theory alongside other prevailing theories. Secondly, it contradicts many religious belief systems, so why make kids go through the suffering of being taught one thing at home and another at school at eight years old? I think ID should be taught even if it is not scientific if for no other reason that many people believe it and if you don't know that you are ignorant to something major in the world. I think we should know a little about all major beliefs in order to be a functional society.

Secondly, intelligent design is scientific. SCIENTIFICALLY, everything that comes to be must have a cause. It has been proven that the universe came to be, so it must have a cause that is not the universe. There is something outside the universe. This something created a universe when it could have left nothing. The world is designed intricately and would not work if so many things had gone only slightly differently. Life is irreducable complex!

Answer 5

Science might change enormously if there is a simple and humble admission that not everything can be known by man by the activities of his own brain and his observations. Understanding how an airplane flies or how billiard balls bounce is one thing - Newtonian mechanics - subject to experimentation. However, the evolution of the universe, the evolution of life on earth, and the evolution of human ethics is without experimental control. Hence these latter subjects are subjective and based in a faith that we are not measuring or observing from a falling elevator and that all can be known by our brain (about four pounds of flesh).

Science and engineering might progress faster if we accept that there are just some things we can't understand. To fill the gap, those questions without answers cause, we turn to our faith. Much like science, many aspects of religion are self consistent and testable by inductive logic.

The best we have in science for explaining organization of structures is to invoke an open thermodynamic system to create dissipative structures (e.g., tornados). This is a far cry from creating a human by random processes of mutation, cross-over, and selection that then becomes aware and contemplates doing PET scans to study neuroethics.

We are left with at least the possibility of a Designer. Some call him God. Hypothetical, assume that God almost randomly hands out Grace to a few, and then Genesis becomes understandable. Think of Faith as being analogous to the math underlying science. No math, no science. No Faith, no understanding of divine creations.

There is no reason for God to explain everything to us. He does not have to explain. For one thing, he does not have to explain why he grants Grace to only a few. Without Grace, Faith is difficult, and an understanding of the book of Genesis is almost impossible.

We are told God does this to develop our character. We are to become more Christ-like. If some parts of His system seem unfair, it's only because we can't see the big picture.

So, teaching children that space and time came from an exploding singularity, and that man evolved from a simple organic soup is OK if it is taught as a theory. Once these theories become doctrine, or when other theories are excluded (e.g., a God / Creator / Designer), we have closed our minds and limited the development of our children.

Answer 6

Evolutionists claim that certain scientific facts and theories chained together form sufficient support for belief in evolution. Intelligent Design uses many of the same facts to come to a different conclusion. We're saying that we want both theories to be heard in schools, and allow people with no previous influence to come up with their own beliefs. Pushing the THEORY of evolution on every student is morally wrong, since it is taught as fact, when it is still a theory. For all the stink evolutionists make about religions pushing themselves on others, evolution is pushed just as much.

Answer 7

the idea of Evolution as an ORIGIN concept, DOES NOT pass scientific method, in fact it definitionally can't, as its un-testable.

and honestly the idea that microevolution would eventually be able to result in macroevolution, or that it could have entirely been the means of development for all life, is not scientific either.

who claims Intelligent Design follows Scientific Method? its no less provable than Evolution (as an origin concept)

NO origin concept CAN be scientific. teaching both "ideas" as to the origin of things, as opinions people have, is a reasonable idea. not teaching either as fact, but teaching that its beyond the scope of scientific method, and many people believe in A, and many believe in B.

Answer 8

No one is equating ID with science, just as it is mistaken to equate evolution with science. Both are BELIEF SYSTEMS that make use of science to support their belief. Schools should be bastions of education, not ignorance. Schools should be making people intelligent, not foolish. Is it intelligent to believe that intelligence is a product of non-intelligence as required by evolution? Design can be recognised only by intelligent people who can understand purpose and meaning, organisation and systems. For many years evolutionary crap has been taught, it's time to expose evolution for what it is: CRAP!

Answer 9

Intelligent design is a theory supported by logic. I think that what the promoters of it want is that if the theory of evolution is being taught that the theory of intelligent design should be presented as an alternative theory.


DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity
The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.

DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.