What is the difference between a scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution and the theory of intelligent design?
2007-01-07 19:43:20 · 9 answers · asked by Just Me 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Balderdash, in each case. Evolution is a proven fact. (Details on request.) The real problem with "intelligent design" is that it has no predictive power: it is useless.
2007-01-07 19:46:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hmm..... A scientific challenge to Darwinism shows why Darwinism is scientifically shaky or false, while Intelligent Design shows that the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution work in the reverse and help to prove a Designer. However Intelligent Design is not simply the opposite of Darwinism, but it is the opposite of Naturalism (which is at the core of Darwinism, no doubt). Intelligent Design as a whole incorporates evidence from Astronomy, Microbiology, Physics, etc. Under Naturalistic thought, life came into being by random coincidental events. Under Intelligent Design, life came into being by intentional, precise and planned events.
2007-01-07 20:19:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution would be to put forward a testable hypothesis that explains the current data and makes predictions that can be tested. Intelligent Design cannot be tested.
2007-01-07 20:50:30 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A scientific theory will attempt to replace an existing theory based on two things 1) It can explain existing data better than the old theory and 2) It also explains data that the former theory could not explain.
Intelligent design does neither.
1) Intelligent design does not explain such things as vestigal organs (such as the appendix, or the coccyx). It does not explain the existence of a chain of intermediary species leading from one known prehistoric species to modern species.
2) Nor does it explain things evolution fails to explain. Evolution has been succesful in explaining the existence of all living things on earth. It has been succesful in classifying them and providing lineage between them.
Intelligent design also breaks a basic rule of science known as Occams Razor, which basically states that any superfluous entities must be eliminated from a theory (Or that a simple theory is to be preferred over a complex one). By bringing in God, the theory of intelligent design breaks that rule - can the theory survive without God? And what observation allows us to posit this entity? The answer is that if you allow for a "cause" of life, it could be something other than God, and that no specific observation brings us to this entity.
Science is not necessarily hostile to the idea of God, but science is only interested in observation, not dogma. Science keeps silent on the question of the existence of God, like any other methaphysical question, which have nothing to do with its enquiry.
But nor does science cater to dogma. And so far, no observation has prompted scientists to consider intelligent design to be a serious competitor to the theory of evolution. At present, the theory of evolution has no competitors from a scientific point of view.
2007-01-07 19:56:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no difference. Intelligent design people are "stealth creationists" who claim they have "scientific challenges" to Darwinism. This is, however, not true. What they have is repackaged creationist arguments that are rejected by the scientific community. If you try to bring this up to them, they will claim that science is dominated by people with an "atheistic bias" which is a common creationist complaint. Only problem is, there are scientists who are religious, they just see that there is a separation between religious questions and scientific ones. Intelligent design proponents don't believe this.
2007-01-07 19:50:38 · answer #5 · answered by yrews45543 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In both of them, evolution is viewed as occurring. ID however states it is directed by a higher power. The reason I do not like ID is because it is unprovable [You can believe it, but not teach it in public schools].
a challenge to Darwinian evolution, however is denying it.
2007-01-07 19:50:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
intelligent design is asinine
2007-01-07 19:48:47 · answer #7 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There doesn't appear to be any science behind I.D.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqt9MMnmPvHu7Mr0BIEdkXrsy6IX?qid=20070104230116AA2MeuC
2007-01-07 19:48:28 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent design believe in God
Darinism doesnt.
and Darwinism is DOODOO
2007-01-07 19:46:13 · answer #9 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋