English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What is the evidence to support this school of thought?

2006-12-16 10:39:33 · 14 answers · asked by Sara 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

14 answers

Intelligent Design is the notion that there are certain systems in a biological entity that are irreducibly complex. That is to say, they could not have evolved because removing even one small part of them will cause them to fail utterly. The most infamous example is that of the mousetrap. If you remove one part of the mousetrap, it ceases to function. So, they claim, because there are such irreducibly complex systems, they must have been designed. They refuse to say that this designer is god.

That is pretty much it. As far as evidence goes, they don't present much. When they have tried, they've been shown that the systems they try to use are, indeed, reducibly complex. For instance, they claim that the immune system could not have evolved, that removing just one tiny link will cause the entire thing to fall apart, therefor it must have always been the way it is now. Never mind the hundreds upon hundreds of scientific papers that describe the evolution of the immune system.

IDers primarily try to use the holes in the evolutionary theory as their evidence. They say that, if there is something that isn't known, then it must be god. This is a logical fallacy and not how science works. There are several things we don't know about evolution and the universe, but that does not mean there is a god. Those are two totally different claims and don't belong together.

Perhaps the biggest fault of the ID movement is the absolute lack of scientific evidence or experimentation to support their position. There is no lab that is dedicated to running experiments. Indeed, there's no way to show that something is "designed" through science. Science is about looking at the universe using the tools we have available to us, all of them natural, none of them supernatural. If something were designed, we wouldn't be able to tell without knowing who this designer is, and, if the designer is not a part of this universe, then there is no way for us to understand him/her/it. ID just says, "Well, we don't know how such and such happened, so we'll just throw up our hands and say god did it." This isn't science. It's not even intellectual honesty.

At the end of the day, ID is more a public relations movement than a scientific endeavor. More time, money and energy is spent by them to sell their idea to the public rather than exploring it to sell it to scientists.

Note, though, that ID is very different from Young Earth Creationism. ID does not dispute the age of the universe, or the earth, or life. They also do not dispute the entirety of the theory of evolution. Just the bits that aren't understood by them.

2006-12-16 11:00:27 · answer #1 · answered by abulafia24 3 · 1 0

In my opinion, the problem isn't so much that it is a bad argument, but rather that it isn't a scientific one. By scientific, I mean that it relies on the supernatural. I will also say that ID has brought about some useful and meaningful discussion. A solid example is a Science paper that was published a few years back - it used some mathematical computation to demonstrate that life was well within mathematical possibility. Something like that would have been ignored without the controversy that intelligent design creationists stirred up. ID arguments have also helped me (and presumably others) refine my understanding of science (epistemology) and definition of what evolutionary theory actually is. In particular a lot of the "counter-arguments" against intelligent design are actually quite poor. The ones you present for example. "The universe is not well designed" could be used as evidence of a creator or no creator. There are others like "you can't disprove intelligent design, therefore it's not science" - but you don't really test "evolution" by disproving it either. Ultimately, the difference is that one invokes the supernatural, and the other does not.

2016-05-23 00:02:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Intelligent Design is the wholly unfounded assertion that life on Earth is the product of planning. It is yet another attempt to introduce religion into the classroom by replacing the word "God" with "Intelligent Designer". It is political doctrine, based on religion, and has nothing to do with science. It makes a few suppositions that sound sensible, but do not survive any scrutiny.

2006-12-16 13:56:11 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0 0

Intellgient design is for those you don't want to think hard enough to actually question lies they are told.

There is no evidence to support it, they are only tryign to disprove evolution.

For those who say that it doesn't make any sense for it to just be a matter of chance, understand that science has shown that we live in a pretty much infinate universe. With that theory in mind, the probability of evolution is silm, but it is possible. We are the only planet that we know of with developed life, so answer me this:

Why would God put life on just one planet?

2006-12-16 10:48:29 · answer #4 · answered by locomonohijo 4 · 0 0

Intelligent design isn't necessarily against evolution, it just looks at it from the point of view that it happened on purpose with the direction an intelligent being, instead of by accident.

2006-12-16 10:46:46 · answer #5 · answered by daisyk 6 · 0 0

As an idea Intelligent Design is neither in the least intelligent, nor as an argument is it well designed. It's not much of a match for evolution, but its adherents seem pretty fixed on it.
_

2006-12-16 10:42:48 · answer #6 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4 1

Intelligent Design says that the Universe is complex; therefore it must have been designed. There is absolutely no evidence to support this "theory".

2006-12-16 10:44:46 · answer #7 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 0 1

There isn't any credible evidence in support of 'intelligent design'. As a matter of fact, ID doesn't even meet the criteria to be considered a scientific theory.

2006-12-16 10:44:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Common Sense says; We have a watch - Theres a watch maker. We have a building - We have a Builder. We have a Creation - There's A Creator.

Even Creation itself - Implies and Reveals to us, there is a Creator, and the Doctrine of the Tri-unity of God.

In Romans 1:20 Brother Paul writes; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

In Creation we have Space, Matter and Time, all in One Creation.
In Space, we have Length, Breadth, and Height, in One Space.
In Matter, we have Energy, Motion, and Phenomena, in One Substance.
In Time, we have, Past, Present, and Furture, in One Time
In Man, we have, Body, Soul and Spirit, in One Man.
In Tri-unity (or Trinity) we have, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in One GOD.

Go to http://www.4truth.net and click on Science

2006-12-16 10:46:21 · answer #9 · answered by n_007pen 4 · 0 0

theory based on the teleological argument for gods existence (argument from design), anyone with any scientific knowledge will know that darwin blew it out the window with origin of species, but some nuts still believe it.

Mental.

2006-12-16 10:50:32 · answer #10 · answered by Om 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers