Intelligent design or evolution?

Question

I personally believe in evolution. There is no proof of intelligent design. None at all. However, there is proof of evolution. Also the intelligent design main idea is that something created the world right? There is an obscure religion that believes the same exact thing but replace the word "god" with "aliens".


Oh, and don't say I'm going to hell and not heaven or whatever. Theres no proof they exist either.

Answer 1

There is an incredible amount of circumstantial evidence for intelligent design, so you can't really say there is no proof, just perhaps not the proof that you personally prefer. As for evolution, there is evidence, but there is no proof positive there either.

The biggest myth is that we have to have one or the other. The "aliens" idea isn't far off the mark, in that evolution could occur and still you could have something plopped down on this earth from somewhere else and it fits the mold, and both theories can co-exist.

As far as intelligent design goes, something to think about.... Why do so many cultures and so many people throughout history have the same basic concept? There is no advantage in survival to "believe" so why would there be so many in the population? And, even more amazing, why are the same basic concepts of right and wrong held to be true throughout time? Why doesn't and hasn't it shifted more?

Finally, think about something you hold to be true based on your personal observation. You observe it, you hold it to be true, but you have no "proof" of it, only your experience. Does that make it any less true than something you have proof of? Why are any eyewitness accounts allowed in court? Doesn't that require a "belief" that the person is telling the truth without any real evidence? Given that, why would so many people "lie" about their experiences with Jesus? What is in it for them?

Answer 2

I don't think intelligent design is a religious idea. It is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea that maybe has been hijacked by religion. You say there is no proof of intelligent design (and you are right), but philosophical ideas don't require proof to have merit. They only require logic, which intelligent design attempts to use. Only scientific ideas require logic AND proof.

I think intelligent design, as a philosophical idea, is very interesting and holds together just as well as any other philosphy. I think evolution, as a scientific idea, is very interesting and holds together just as well as any other scientific theory. The major issues occur because people are tryng to treat intelligent design as a scientific idea and evolution as a philosophical idea. These ideas must be viewed in light of their origin and in the proper context for them to be meaningful and consistent.

The idea behind a philosophical idea is that if you accept the axioms (assumptions) and you accept the logic, then you must accept the conclusions. If you reject the axioms or reject the logic, then you do not need to accept the conclusions. No 'proof' is technically required. So it is with intelligent design.

On the other hand, we have all these observations (evidence, PROOF) that lead us to the conclusion championed by evolution. You cannot argue with the observations. The only thing you can argue with is the conclusion. But then you would need an alternate explanation for all the observations that seemingly point to evolution. Intelligent design certainly doesn't come close. Intelligent design proponents need to work on the scientific level of rigor if they want to compete with evolution. Challenging a scientific idea with a philosophical one (or vice versa) is comparing apples and oranges, to use the old adage. It's pointless. There shouldn't even be debate about it. Evolution is science. ID is philosophy. One could never replace the other. They shouldn't even be taught in the same class or mentioned in the same sentence.

Okay, so I've done alot of thinking about this topic. I get a little emotional about it. :)

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

I agree with your overall opinion ... but I would correct one word. When talking about science, the word "proof" should be avoided. You prove things in *mathematics*, not science. Why? Because science *always* leaves open the possibility that (a) a new piece of evidence may appear that disproves the theory; or (b) a better (simpler) theory may come along that explains the same evidence. Instead of "proof" we use the word "evidence."

Intelligent Design asks some very interesting questions (about the nature of information, complexity, and how do we recognize signs of "intelligence" when we see it).

However, first, there are many fields dedicated to answering these questions without need of an "Intelligent Designer" (fields like complexity theory, chaos theory, chaotics, emergence, information theory, and artificial intelligence).

Second, a set of *questions* is not a theory ... it doesn't explain *anything*. Specifically, an explanation needs to describe something complex in terms of something simpler. ID does the opposite. Since an "intelligent designer" is by definition more complex than the things it designs, you've just described a complex concept in terms of something *more* complex. Thus it fails utterly as an explanation (to say nothing of a *testable* explanation) of anything at all.

----

To answer a comment by btpage:

"As far as intelligent design goes, something to think about.... Why do so many cultures and so many people throughout history have the same basic concept?"

That's easy ... because all human beings are intelligent, and create things. Therefore it is natural consequence of intelligence to believe that you yourself were created by another intelligence.

-------

Comment by silberstein: "The most difficult question (at least for me) is: how can two so overwhelming complicated and specified processes like DNA synthesis (manuscript for proteins) and proteins (necessary tools for DNA synthesis) be born exactly at the same time?"

Let me help you with that difficult question. Google 'RNA World'. RNA is a very good middle ground between DNA and proteins. It both a pretty good replicator (but not as stable as DNA) and a pretty good catalyst (but not as good as proteins).

And second, don't just pull out incredibly small odds out of a hat, you need to have some basis. And even if you determine that the odds are 1 in a trillion, if there are (say) ten trillion of planets in the universe, then the odds are that life will have emerged about ten times *somewhere* in the universe. That's how odds work.

-----------

Ernesto started with a pretty good defense of ID, got sidetracked in the second paragraph, and then ruined it with "Most Darwinists are atheists". That is neither true, nor relevant.

Answer 4

I have always considered myself an amateur scientist. I read a lot. SO I tend to sway towards facts. Obviously there is solid evidence of evolution. But I am struggling with the DNA thing.

It is almost like a computer program, but for biological design and function. I just can't bridge evolution for everything that DNA is capable of. When a living (DNA) thing is stressed, some times it mutates based on gene sequences already embedded in the DNA to allow it to survive.

Scientific American and even National Geographic have assembled some nice, understandable reports of the latest findings.

At this moment I guess I vote I believe that BOTH exist.

Answer 5

Intelligent Design (ID) is misunderstood by most people. It has 100% scientific supporting evidence and no Biblical or religious support. The main areas of science that support it are Irirreducible Complexity, Information Theory and Design Theory. ID does not deal with how the world was made but the conclusion of this scientific theory is that there is some kind of Intelligent Designer at work in Nature and that is what ticks off some people-that observable scientific evidence points to this.

When you consider that evolutionary views include matter forming from nothing and life forming from no life and even existing kinds of organismis changing into different kinds you have "supernatual" views. This is because it is contrary to natural laws for those things to happen and these are really faith based view or religious views. Those who deny this are in denial of the facts and for them to oppose creationism which does incorporate religious views as well is just plain biased.

Most Darwinists are atheists and an August 2005 federal court of appeals ruled that atheisim is a "religion" because of how atheists hold to a certain cosmology in their lives. So we have secularists who don't want any mention of a creator or even an inference to one and Darwinists who want to keep their own religious or faith based view of macoevolution. If you believe in something you can't see (as in the 3 things mentioned at in the previous paragragh) it is faith based. It's that simple. ID will eventually be taught in public schools because of the real science behind it. All the name-calling of it being creationism is really either an attempt to disqualiy it or ignorance of the facts.

Answer 6

Your understanding on the subject looks scientifically sound to me.

Intelligent Design is not a theory and it can not be tested. It is just an opinion so it doesn't have a place in science. Evolution is a testable theory and has been shown to be the best theory so far. Of course there are some exceptions where evolution doesn't quite tell the whole story but on the whole it is a solid theory.

Answer 7

i thought about that an i dont believe in aliens, but to work together, the god theory and aliens.... i think that aliens are just spirits that chose not to come to earth and follow christ's plan in the pre-existance, and neither satans (to forcibly be perfect) because the spirits that followed satan are in the spirit world and the aliens are just spirits that were arrogant enough to leave and try to make their own bodys, which is why they expiriment on people and try to breed. they just cant get the human body right.
thats what i think just from observation, again im not a wierd paranoid person, just a 16 year old guy who has thoughts and opinions
oh and also, i think people can believe what they want, but i believe the point to religion is to believe, even when there is no proof. thats faith. besides the world would be nothing if no one tried anything they were interested at least once. there was a scripture that i liked "all ye who lack wisdom, let him ask of god" easy just one on one in sincerity and then try and say nothing good came out of it...
my message shouldnt have anything to do with intelligent desighn in the first place. i dont believe in intelligent design. just an after thought

Answer 8

If there ever was intelligent design, then it was more than likely the work of an advanced intelligence (extraterrestrials).

The whole idea that there is a fatherly being in the heavens who created all life on earth is just SO ridiculous. Human wishful thinking at its worst. I wish that these religious nuts would be eliminated from the gene pool already.

Personally, I believe that life on earth is the result of asteroid bombardments containing microorganisms that eventually evolved into more complex organisms.

Answer 9

The Flying Spagetti Monster is equally valid to Intelligent Design.

Answer 10

Evolution very obviously takes place all time and everywhere: mutations, new recombinations...

Some occasional events are harder to explain within evolutionary framework.

The most difficult question (at least for me) is: how can two so overwhelming complicated and specified processes like DNA synthesis (manuscript for proteins) and proteins (necessary tools for DNA synthesis) be born exactly at the same time? Probability 0,000000000.................%?

More intelligence than for the construction of a mobile phone was needed, I think....