I'm a big fan of the TV show "LOST", and there is a funny link here, when Locke and Jack are arguing, and Locke says to Jack, "Do you know why we don’t see eye to eye, Jack? Because you are a man of science (Jack is a Doctor), and I'm a man of Faith."
Now, Intelligent Design IS based on FAITH. It is WRONG, however, if you think that it is NOT based on science. Science has NOT DISPROVEN CREATION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, and to say that it has is plain WRONG and a LIE! Evolution as a Theory has proven one thing.... and that is that Evolutionary Theory ITSELF evolves rapidly. In fact, most of what was thought true or probable only 5-10 years ago has been either proven wrong or altered mightily.
Example - Jurassic Park, the blockbuster film from only 8 years ago portrayed Raptors as lizard like, based on the most recent science. Now, the wackos at Discovery channel portray them as vicious chickens. In fact, there's NO links, or tweeners between ANY species including Archaeopteryx.
2006-12-11 11:58:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
You know why we don't see eye to eye, all in on the flop? Because I am a man of science and you are a man of ignorance, bordering on stupidity. Now I will leave you to be torn to pieces by the evolutionary biologists of this site.
2006-12-11 12:10:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is no science on which intelligent design is based. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a repackaging of Creation Science, something that was uncovered during a court case in Pennsylvania. Creation science was ruled by the US Supreme Court as not science, just an attempt to put religious beliefs in the schools.
"Jurassic Park" is called "science fiction" for a reason. It cannot be used as a basis for science fact. Birds (including archeopteryx) are direct descendants of dinosaurs.
2006-12-11 20:05:35 · answer #2 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Faith can also mean blinding oneself. Very little in evolutionary theory has changed. There may be debates over data interpretation, in some cases. Far too many transitional forms have been identified. Intelligent Design was a political fabrication, and is not science because it cannot be tested. You watch too much TV and movies. You seem dedicated to fiction.
2006-12-11 21:03:11 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science is all about DISPROVING hypotheses, not proving them (it is not possible to "prove" anything). Science cannot be applied to untestable hypotheses. God and intelligent design are untestable hypotheses (they cannot be disproved) and as such are not within the realm of science.
Occam's razor states that "the simplest explaination is most likely the correct one". For any observation there is an infinite number of potential explainations - not all of which can (or should) be tested. I don't believe that pink bunnies on a distant planet control my thoughts, not because of science (it is an untestable hypothesis, science does not apply) but because it violates Occam's razor. I don't believe in God for the same reason - a belief in God raises many more questions and answers none.
2006-12-11 20:28:31 · answer #4 · answered by jowpers 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Creationism can't be proven or disproven, because it's not science. But by the same token, it has NO PLACE in a science classroom, not even as a so-called "alternative theory," because it's not science!
2006-12-11 20:04:23 · answer #5 · answered by Amy F 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Scientist show that the probability of complex life (such as plants and animals on earth) evolving by Darwin’s evolutionary model is extremely small, zero statistically. According to most mathematical calculations, a universe 100 billion years old is still not old enough for a simple single cell to have developed on earth. Even attempts to synthesize RNA, an information carrying molecule, in the laboratory have also been unsuccessful. Life has not been explained through chemical origins.
2006-12-11 20:40:23 · answer #6 · answered by jay r 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Thats all nice and all, but it is all opinion, and last time I checked, science doesn't give a rat's *** about your opinion, my opinion, or Joe the auto-diesel mechanic down the street's opinion.
I am curious how you expect science to test creation as creation is a supposedly supernatural event, and outside the realm of science entirely.
2006-12-11 20:03:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
My Biology Professor here at college loves the saying "Religion is science without proof."
2006-12-14 10:32:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
intelligent design is a plausible explanation of exisitence on this earth. the idea of irreducible complexity is one of the supporting ideas on intelligent design. if evolution only keeps what is good and develops randomly by developing on the good traits, then the theory of evolution would hold much water (i.e. the development of the eye from a single cell light receptor). however, with the introduction of molecular biology, scientist realize that things are more complex and cannot be reduced further to simple components (i.e. cell cycle...we need at least 3 genes to control it and their supporting proteins. without them, cell cycle would be out of control). so it leaves theory of evolution sorta limited and short of a complete answer of our exisitence. a good source is mike behe's book.
2006-12-11 20:11:24 · answer #9 · answered by teamtae 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋