http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/081353433X
Intelligent Design is not VALID!
2007-01-27 02:54:03 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nothing science says can ever disprove there is God, really.
Science, can however, disprove pseudo-science.
But do check out The Evolution Cruncher. If it won't change your beliefs, at least it will give you a well-rounded look at your beliefs and a window into where we're coming from.
2007-01-27 03:33:31 · answer #1 · answered by Hmmmmmmm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent design is a cover to open a door for creationism in schools. This is a subject that will soon no longer even be an issue (Intelligent Design will never be allowed in American public schools- speaking only in realistic terms- its not going to happen).
and eds... don't forget that the comment you just made is a VERY valid argument against the bible.
2007-01-27 03:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I won't attack evolution, yet i will say that if identity isn't technological information, neither is evolution. however the 1st think of you need to substitute on your techniques is that identity is creationism. they are completely countless issues. they might agree on some factors, yet they don't seem to be a similar. identity is technological information, and makes use of the scientific technique. of course, evolution believers do a similar factor you declare identity proponents do. whatever they see, it constantly seems to be evolution inflicting it. They under no circumstances say that evolution could no longer do this, that's basically constantly assumed. in case you prefer a stable e book on why identity is technological information, examine the only listed below. Please do no longer tell me you will no longer because of the fact the author lies, as i will say a similar factor concerning to the authors you have faith. in case you easily should comprehend what identity is all approximately, and why evolution won't be in a position of stand as much as a similar scrutiny, examine the e book. additionally, identity does no longer attack something. that's basically searching for layout in nature. It has no longer something to do with faith or creation, besides the certainty that it concurs that a writer must be available. whether, it has no thought who the writer is. that's basically as valid a technological information as forensics, opposite engineering, SETI and cryptology. the only distinction is they are utilising the technological information to biology, which makes some people uncomfortable. basically because of the fact which you do no longer in user-friendly terms like the accessible implications of something, would not make it non-technological information. Evolution additionally has metaphysical implications, yet no one looks to have a difficulty with that. i won't be in a position of do the question justice in this small area, however the e book i discussed provides you with a greater finished answer. thank you for the considerate question. Oh, and every time you pay attention somebody saying something derogatory approximately identity, basically be conscious that to evolution, and you will see why that's basically projection.
2016-11-27 22:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by lorrie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I believe that to be a valid criticism of Intelligent Design.
2007-01-27 02:56:41 · answer #4 · answered by genaddt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Intelligent design should be renamed to Stupid Design.
2007-01-27 03:06:05 · answer #5 · answered by Gazriel The God 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read the book...it brings up many questions...but gives no definite answers to those questions if you truly study the book and go through the references. It is a must read but not and end. It is part of the on going process to come up with answers.
2007-01-27 03:02:40 · answer #6 · answered by chico2149 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the book is an example of criticism. its validity is quite suspect.
god bless
2007-01-27 03:07:36 · answer #7 · answered by happy pilgrim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes but so what?
As if creationists are going to read it.
If they were capable they'd go read 'The Origin of Species' it makes me feel so sick when they use arguments that were disproven over 140 years ago.
2007-01-27 03:00:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Highly doubtful since a man designed it and wrote it based on his theories.
2007-01-27 02:59:07 · answer #9 · answered by Eds 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Awesome maybe they have found the transitional form that would prove evolution! Oh wait. I still don't see one. Drat there should be thousands of them. Oh well.
2007-01-27 03:06:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋