Is there ANY scientific fundamental for intelligent design?

Question

Is there any scientific theory, formal papers or something structured that supports this "theory"?

Answer 1

Read carefully: None at all.

Answer 2

Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, Edwin Hubbles discovery of a redshift in distant galaxies, Bell Laboratoriesdiscoveries of the cosmic background microwave radiation, COBE satelites confirmation of the measurement of the uniform entropy in the universe.

These are the fundamental discoveries which led us to the "Big Bang" Theory which contradicted the steady state theory neccessary for Darwinian Naturalism's mathematical probability.

Also using scientific arguments of logic beginning with the Kalam argument intelligent design is the only conclusion that makes sense.

It goes something like this: Everything that comes into existence has an originating cause.The material universe came into existence.Therefore the universe has an originating cause. If the universe did not come into existence, then it has existed during an actual infinite series of times. But the universe could not have existed during an actual infinite series of times. An infinite series is by definition a series with no last member.Everything that exists but does not have a nature that requires it to exist has a sustaining cause that explains its existence. The universe exists. The universe does not have a nature that requires it to exist. Therefore the universe has a sustaining cause. The universe is a contingent thing. If the universe is a contingent thing then it is a dependent thing. If the universe is a dependent thing then its sustaining cause must be something other than the universe and the things in it. Therefore the sustaining cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe. If all sustaining causes are dependent things then the ongoing existence of the universe is explained by an infinite regress of sustaining causes. But nothing can be explained by an infinite regress of sustaining causes. So not all sustaining causes can be dependent things and the ultimate sustaining cause of the universe must be an independent thing. If something is an independent thing then it is a neccessary thing. Therefore the ultimate sustaining cause of the universe is a neccessary thing.

Answer 3

Like evolution, ID is a theory based on the way the evidence is interpreted.

"Evolution" means different things to different people. I was surprised to discover that most evolutionists consider variations within a kind as "proof" for the theory of evolution. Variations within a kind is observable, provable and demonstrable, but it doesn't prove abiogenesis, stellar evolution, elemental evolution or any number of other entirely theoretical models advanced to explain the universe apart from the intelegent design of a creator.

Evolutionists make the intellectual jump from variation to evolution and often consider their theory to be fact.

Christians interpret the evidence according to the Biblical record and often consider their belief to be truth.

The two cannot be reconciled, nor can either be proven this side of our numerous event horizons.

It always comes back to a matter of personal choice.

You like choice, don't you?
.

Answer 4

To call intelligent design a theory is a joke. Scientific theories involved repeatable and verifiable evidence and documentation. Intelligent design is a story, a myth with no basis in reality.

Answer 5

I'm only in high school. Plus, I'm a girl so what I say doesn't really matter but is there any scientific fundemental for EVOLUTION? You're telling me that one day a single celled organism decided it wanted to be a fish. So it wished really hard and became a fish. Then it got tired of swimming so it wished really hard and became a snake. Then it wanted legs so it became- sorry for skipping ahead- a monkey. Then it decided to walk upright and suddenly became a human. I'm saying this with the uttermost respect. Although there may not seem to be anything scientific to back up ID, there really isn't much to back up evolution either. Maybe i'm just ignorant or need to look into it more but I find the whole evolution thing hard to believe. but the same way i find that hard to believe, you may find ID hard to believe. There's probably just the bible but I think most scientists are too wrapped up in the theory of evolution to look deeper into other theories. And again, I say this respectfully and hope i didn't offend anyone.

Answer 6

If you consider mathematics science,then consider this.The odds of any 3 of Jesus' prophecies coming true are 44.6 trillion to one.In a court of law,that is mathematically impossible x 444,600.SO...in a US court of law,Creation MUST be accepted as fact.
A space shuttle CAN NOT reach the moon unless it is taken into account that the prophet Isaiah stopped the earth for 1.5 days.Otherwise the calculatory trajectory is skewed and will not hit the moon at all.

It is scientifically impossible for a bumble bee to fly.

IF evolution was true,there would have to be BILLIONS of transitional forms (creatures halfway evolved) yet there is not ONE example in existence anywhere on earth.Of all the trillions of animals which have lived and died on earth over the years....NOT ONE.

Try visiting Dr.Ken Hamm's site,the Creation Institute,for all the scientific evidence you can stand !

Answer 7

I would suggest going to "www.drdino.com" and read everything you can find there on the subjects you want. Also, I would recommend reading "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains thousands of scientific facts that deny evolution and support creation. the Dr. Dino website also has various books for sale with valuable scientific knowledge that supports intelligent design.

Answer 8

no and nor could there be. Intelligent design, despite what some say, isn't even a scientific theory - it's a philosophical theory.

Answer 9

No, and even Jonathan Wells admits it in his Cato institute podcast. He would like the skeptics to check back in 40 years.

Answer 10

There is the principle of irreducible complexity which is perhaps the only observable component of ID. The only problem of ID proponents is that it hasn't been observed, so ID doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Answer 11

Science only explains the particulate matter of God. Science desribes what is already in existence, science did not create it. Science is not God. Why can't people get that though thier heads?