Why is there no evidence for intelligent design?

Question

The only "evidence" it promotes are fallacious arguments against evolution. If it's a science, where's the science?

Jim I am not

Answer 1

Its best argument is that life is too complex to have resulted from natural processes, but it's an argument that just doesn't hold up. Even if that were true, it does nothing to prove the Christian God. And "Intelligent Design" is one of the best examples of pseudoscience that I can think of.

Answer 2

In order to get an intelligent response you need to offer some intelligent example instead of a general dismissal of ID. But your question is enlightening nonetheless because I can infer from it that you have not consulted the work of scientists like Michael Behe or Stephen Myer, Jonathan Wells, Bill Dembski and others. If you are willing to go where the evidence leads you may spend some quality time on: http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Reading the first paragraph of the first article and then concluding that it has no evidence does not constitute research. Unfortunately most people are either too busy or too lazy to give it fair consideration. And just for something to chew on, one example of the science of ID is how the molecular/biological world could not possibly have arisen magically. Even granting that life could have evolved by natural selection, you have to have DNA before you can mutate DNA. The likelihood of DNA coming together randomly to create the first life form is about as likely as the belief that a chimpanzee pecking at a typewriter will eventually type one of Shakespeare's plays. In other words, the science for an unguided natural origin of life is embarrassingly still as clueless now as Darwin was 150 years ago. Scientists cannot offer an explanation as to how life could have ARISEN naturally, yet it an amazing show of blind faith they push forward with the idea that macroevolution is true. The logic is incredible: Life obviously exists so...evolution is true!. The logical prerequisite to natural selection is natural origin. Before one can assume natural selection the natural origin must be verified or AT LEAST have some scientifically plausible explanation. To reverse it is like assuming that the words "Jane loves Mike" carved into a tree must have been produced by natural causes without an explanation of how natural causes could have produced it. But that is the logic of Darwinism. That is why I believe it is actually more like a religion. Scientists, more than most, are operating on blind faith, preferring to believe the origin of life was natural when they have no good reason to believe that.

Answer 3

I think ID is a little more subtle than you give it credit for. For example, check out Hubert Yockey's book "Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life." He's not an ID proponent, but his work is congenial to IDers concerns. Very serious evolutionary biology and information theory, and pointing out very serious difficulties with the current evolutionary orthodoxy.

The trouble is that ID is ultimately no friend of fundamentalism. It does not demonstrate the existence or activity of "God" as God is understood in traditional theism, namely, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent supernatural person. The "intelligence" posited by ID could very well be an impersonal facet or aspect of the natural world -- i.e., the sort of "God" suggested by liberal theologians (such as Wieman or other process theologians).

Also note that ID doesn't necessarily deny evolution. It just denies that pure chance is ultimately an adequate account of the process. And quite frankly, scientists moving beyond the mechanistic Newtonian model are open to this sort of thought.

Answer 4

Following the Scientific method there has not been any test put forth to observe or measure life forms evolve.

"The Scientific method, which is investigating phenomena by gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning."

sherlock homes once said - "whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."

Since we have not been able to replicate the process of evolution then by the process of elimination creation is the next best theory.

Edwin Hubble using the Scientific method observed that Universe had a beginning (big bang) suggesting there was a creator.

Answer 5

King David said"The Heavens above show there is a God".
He was right.The universe works like a finely tuned watch.You can't have a watch without a watch maker.You would have chaos,the same as if you put 40 chimps in a room with typewriters and expected to get the works of Shakespeare at the end of the day.
The eyeball alone shows intellegent design.The best that evolutionists have come up with is that a salamander type creature,scaped his face on a rock and an eye began to appear.Talk about "Fairy Tales"?

Answer 6

The fact that the earth is the only planet in our solar system that is placed just in the right spot so that life is possible on it is evidence. If it was just a little closer to the sun we couldn't live and it was a little bit farther away we could not live here. This is no accident. Another example is the proof that the global flood did happen.

Answer 7

The actual evidence is seen differently by those on either side of the fence. (I am not an extremist creationist whose going to spew pages of garbage at you.)

I could present you with the obvious mixture of divinity of the human mind in its conscious and subconscious and dreams and whatnot. The divinity of imagination.

You might say, we just don't understand it yet.

Try, for just this instant to understand that the other argument is not, by necessity wrong, and that which you use is not necessarily right. They might both be right, or just one of them.

I aksed this question last night, you could say that its the other side of the coin:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiW9yW3Xhd_nwk_Le.iSlYfsy6IX?qid=20061214213935AA51GKY

Answer 8

Psalm 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

Answer 9

There is no evidence because it is myth. Humans devised god, and explained how this god created the world. There is no more evidence for this than there is for flying pigs on mars. Some people might believe in flying pigs on mars, they might even write books about them, but that does not mean they exist.

Answer 10

It's a charade to provide a veneer of respectability to creationism. Most species (99%) don't survive so they weren't intelligently designed.