Is it possible to believe in evolution AND intelligent design?

Question

What do you think?

Answer 1

Of course! I do! I believe that this world and most of it's creatures and inhabitants were designed by an intelligent force...call it what you may. I also believe that they were designed with the ability to mutate and to adapt in order to survive. The ability to evolve is a survival trait...a very important one. You would have to be pretty close-minded, one way or the other, not to see that.

In most things in life, you will find that the actual truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Answer 2

Yes, I do.

It is perfectly possible that God - or some other intelligent designer - designed creatues through evolution (I dare you to prove otherwise!). You might argue that evolution is a logical necessity and therefore not really a design, but God could have designed the laws of logic.

Another point that no one seems to notice is that if God exists and is far superior to humans, then we probably aren't nearly intelligent enough or open-minded enough to understand how the world works. For example, no one knows why the Big Bang happened, or where the matter came from: if you believe that God caused it your problem is solved, because God did it in some way that is too complicated for us to understand.

Evolution and intelligent design don't contradict each other. It is very possible that evolution itself is an intelligent design.

Answer 3

Intelligent design is a cop-out that is used to reconcile the hard work that has gone into the study of evolution with the intellectual laziness of creationism. It's a classic example of "I can't explain the exact origin, and my funding will suffer if I get too controversial, so let's toss in a little credit to God for the origin of the whole thing." If you believe in intelligent design, you lose all credibility as a rational human being as far as I'm concerned. A long time ago, it was not OK to be a scientist and an atheist, and if you came up with something that threatened creationism, you heard about it from everyone. That's why a lot of scientists back then said, "...oh, but you can't rule out a divine creator". We're past that now, and abiogenesis doesn't have to be about the supernatural anymore.

Remember: Just because we don't know how something happened does not mean that we have to give a deity credit for it. It is more intellectually honest to just say, "We don't know yet but at least we are trying and studying things that actually exist in our efforts to find the answers." We are the intelligent beings. We give birth. We are creators. We don't need anything greater than ourselves.

Answer 4

That is a good question. The answer is yes and no. Depending upon your concept of evolution. There are two basic varying views of evolution. One, called macroevolution, and the other...microevolution. Microevolution is like a species adapting to thier environment, small changes within the species, but one species does not change into a different species. That type of adaptation does take place and is scientifically proven. It does not contradict creation. However, on the other hand, macroevolution, which was Darwins theory, does not take place, has never been proven, and really is ridiculous. The following is from an article I read, and explains it very aptly...

Evolution-Fact or Myth?
Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution isa a fact? After critizibg some of Richard Dawkins' reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense "because we have a prior committment, a commitment to materialism.* " (Materialism, in this sense, refers to the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process)
Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: "There's been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you've got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion." He further notes that in research universities "the religious people keep their mouths shut," while "irregilious people discriminate." According to Stark,
"there's a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community]."
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of their findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common anscestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or myth?

Answer 5

Of course! I do. Pure evolution doesn't really have an answer for where the "mechanical" elements of the smallest organism originated from, and therefore, to me, I think because of the intricacies of these tiny organisms there must be more to it. But, that's just me. I also don't think evolution contradicts the Bible. It could be that some people are a little ignorant (not in a negative degrading sort of way) about evolution.

Answer 6

You can believe whatever you like. I'm not entirely sure about intelligent design, but I do believe in creation and evolution. There are those who believe in one or the other, there are even some who believe in neither at all, so believing in both isn't really that far fetched.

Answer 7

that is conceivable to trust in a author and settle for data like evolution. sensible layout on the different hand is a failed hypothesis, so that you would possibly want to "trust" in it at the same time as no longer accepting as a medical failure. Edit: Evolution stands by technique of itself as being a organic prevalence and there is not any evidence to recommend that it become inspired by technique of a author. that is properly shown, verified and could be considered actuality. concept on the different hand, has no longer some thing to do with truth and also you're free to trust what you want as long as you agree for the data. Cosmology, or how the universe formed also has a great deal of evidence and also does no longer coach intravention nor does it want the presence of a author for it to have befell.

Answer 8

It's very possible.

Some closed-minded fools may claim otherwise, but that is because their mind is already made up in one direction or the other. They only see what they believe and not what is possible. Such blindness is disheartening.

I know some people who believe that the universe was created by a being and that this being created the universe through the act of evolution.

Now, while it's possible to believe both, it's important to note that only one is scientific. We can observe evolution. We can measure it. We cannot observe nor measure intelligent design. Despite the claims that it's a science, ID is still a faith-based belief.

Answer 9

No.

Evolution calls for random mutations that are then NATURALLY selected for reproduction because the consequent life form is better suited to the environment in which it is living. (The environment is seen as constantly shifting, or the creature itself moves to a new place.)

Intelligent design says that some supernatural designer (try to find someone who doesn't call this God) decides what the creature will be like, independent of the environment. It is not a natural event.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 10

Yes and no.

It depends on what you mean by "intelligend design" As used popularly the term refers to the attempt to cloak creationism in a deceptive veneer of "science"--but its still nothing but an attempt by religious fanatics to force their views on others--and no, you can't "believe" in that and in evolution.

But if you are referring to the philosophical question--long discussed by philosophers dating back at least to Aristotle and Plato--of God's existance and role in creation--then absolutely yes. There is no contradiction--evolution is science--and science studies--and makes statements about--only empirical questions. To put it another way, all science does is try to understand the processes of the world around us--but does not ( and in fact isn't equipped to) answerphilosophical questions. For my part, as a scientist, I believe God is the Creator--evolutionary schience just helps understand more about what He created--and maybe a little about how He went about doing it.