2007-01-08 11:26:40 · 30 answers · asked by Edward J 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Many interesting answers so far. Some have shown they haven't been able to distinguish the difference between a theory and the implications of a theory. The Big Bang is another such example. It is a perfectly good theory with religious implications but this doesn't mean it is religion. I also suggest open minded readers read some of the ID writers books for themselves and not rely on the distortions which are commonly being used. Some of the critcs have not even read their works. Michael Denton who is an agnostic wrote evolution a theory in crisis who actually inspired some of the current ID theorists. I suggest any open minded reader read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells and the 10 edition of Darwin's Black Box, where his new chapter deals with critics. I also suggest a book I read recently. Darwin strikes back by Thomas Woodward. Chronicles there rise and fights against opposition and the ridiculous arguments and tactics being used against them.
2007-01-08 11:49:25 · update #1
I am starting to get the opinion few people in here have ever read any of their works. From what I have read in their literature no one has made it their cause to try and determine who the designer is. And no one I have seen has tried to prove events in the bible. Again I stress read their material for yourselves and don't believe the caricatures and distortions. If nothing else you will be better prepared in how to intelligently criticize their works.
2007-01-08 11:59:46 · update #2
Red B Michael Behe was inspired after reading the book Evolution a theory in crisis by the Agnostic Michael Denton. At that point Behe was a Catholic who had no problem believing in evolution and had no problem with it being a Catholic.
2007-01-08 12:05:12 · update #3
I agree with A.C., it is a theory. I studied ID while taking physical anthropology in college. It raised a number of questions for me and I found some of the points very interesting.
Open your mind
2007-01-08 11:32:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
It sure is. It's just creationism with a few scientific words tossed in to fool the ignorant.
Science looks at the evidence, and tries to come up with a theory that fits it.
Creationism starts with a forgone conclusion (god did it), then attempts to manipulate the evidence or ignore evidence to fit the conclusion. Backwards.
If anyone ever comes up with a new theory that fits the evidence better than evolution, the person will be world famous throughout history and win a Nobel Prize in science.
Creationists don't understand that nitpicking evolution will never result in a default answer of "god did it".
2007-01-08 11:35:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. It's not religion. It is a technique a religion uses to get taught as if it were fact.
It cannot be called a theory in any realistic sense. Scientific theories are developed to explain the facts. Intelligent design works the other way and tries to make facts fit around it. No scientist of any note would ever put it forward as a real theory.
2007-01-08 12:16:33 · answer #3 · answered by The Truth 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Creation has always been an embarrassment to Christianity. Let`s be honest , Noah and the flood, Adam and Eve, Genesis, are guaranteed to bring fierce ridicule from the educated. Having committed fully to Creationism, and suffered continual rejection by serious science, ID was invented. It is not as humorous as the Christians previous truth,( Bible creationism), but it is still a great joke, and a feeble attempt to `prove` fiction. I feel some sympathy for believers, it must be annoying when the truth keeps changing , without God telling them why !
2007-01-08 11:46:42 · answer #4 · answered by ED SNOW 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would have to say no. Religion to me has always been about the culture surrounding the idea and the way it is celebrated, rather than just the theory itself. Hence I've never regarded atheism as an actual religion.
2007-01-08 11:34:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't science, it has been rejected by all scientific journals for not passing the peer review process. It was also described as an attempt to cloak creationism in the clothes of science by the judge in the recent legal case in Kansas.
Micheal Behe himself described it as being religious in nature.
2007-01-08 11:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by Red P 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its not religion and its not science.
Its supposed to be science and includes any scientific theory that proves events in the bible and prove the universe was created(even if they are subsequently found wrong). However it doesn't specify who or what created the universe so is not religion
2007-01-08 11:33:28 · answer #7 · answered by Gordon B 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Intelligent design is used by religious factions to distinguish between nature and God.
This meaning God.
2007-01-08 11:32:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is the sad attempt to make the bible fit the hard facts of science, which it does not. I has nothing intelligent about it what so ever.
2007-01-08 11:33:29 · answer #9 · answered by DAVID C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Instead of using God in it's supposition, it uses the definition of God. The object of course being to explain things away with an irrational explaination. Unintelligent design makes more sense.
2007-01-08 11:32:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually yes it is. They believe in the creation myth, only they wrap it up in science speak and say it might have taken longer than six days to do.
2007-01-08 11:36:47 · answer #11 · answered by Barabas 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋