Is Intelligent Design an intelligent alternative??

Question

A lot could be said about macroevolution, but the space does not permit us to go any further.

In the light of fossil record, molecular isolation, transitional difficulties, irreducible complexity, cyclical change, and genetic limits ( and the fact that darwinists cannot explain the origin of the universe or of first life ), you would think darwinists might finally admit that their theory does not fit observable evidence.

We agree that evolution is a fact, but not in the sense that darwnists mean it. If you define evolution as "change", then certainly living beings have evolved. But this evolution is on the micro, not the macro level. As we have seen , here is not only a lack of evidence for macroevolution; there is positive evidence that it has not occured.

If macroevolution is not true, then what is??? Well, if there is no natural explanation for the origin of new life forms, then there must be and intelligent explanation.

Tell me your thoughts.

Answer 1

I think its an intelligent alternative...but this is way outside of my knowledge (im not a science guy).....

P.S. Your always on here! Share some of the points!! :)

Answer 2

You seem to miss a couple of important facts concerning "micro" and "macro" evolution; namely that they are one and the same. The prefixes are thrown around by biblical adherents to throw doubt on the evolutionary process. This was done to discredit the theory that discredited creation.

Micro-evolution is the small scale changes that occur within a species, to help aid in survival. The changes in the beaks of the finches on the Galapogos Islands are a good example.

Macro-evolution is the culmination of micro-evolutionary change. The main reason that there are "jumps" in the fossil record is due to the fact that a great deal of the tissues that are impacted by micro-evolution do not survive the fossilization process. It's only when the solid tissue of a body is impacted by these evolutionary changes will you see them in the fossil record.

Claiming that there is no evidence to support "macro" evolution is false and foolish. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html to begin reading about the actual evidence that proves it did occur. The only groups who have published contrary evidence are those who support ID, and they are using a perverted version of the scientific method to prove a conclusion that they've already drawn. True science doesn't do that.

Intelligent Design is an oxymoron. There is no intelligence to the "theory" that it proposes, just mythology and superstition. The claims that it is valid are false. When you already have your answer, and you just aim to prove it, you aren't performing science (nor are you seeking knowledge). Science is the search for answers, and as more information is found, those answers may change. ID's "answers" will not change, and can always...ALWAYS...be reduced to "god did it". ID is a failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist theism into classrooms, not education.

Natural selection (there is no such thing as "darwinism"), has no place attempting to explain the origin of the universe (you know...the Big Bang thing that all evidence points to), or the origin of life (abiogenesis). There are specific branches of science that dedicate themselves to finding the answers to those questions.

To answer your original question though: No, intelligent design is NOT an intelligent alternative. Frankly, its an insult to intelligence to use the word in that name (just as Creation Science is an insult to science).

Answer 3

1. 'Evolutionists' are not concerned with the birth of the universe. That is a question for astrophysicists, astronomers and theoretical physicists. Evolution is a field within biology.

2. Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated in the biological world.

3. The fossil record demonstrates evolution.

4. The origin of life is not a question for evolutionary biologists. The study of abiogenesis is a completely different field of study. For example, evolution allows for a god that created the first spark of life.

5. What mechanism could possibly prevent small 'micro' level changes from accumulating into macro-evolution?

6. What specifically are you talking about with molecular isolation, transitional difficulteis, cyclical change and genetic limits that so invalidates evolution in your opinion?

7. Can you name one (just one) testable hypothesis of Intelligent Deisgn?

Answer 4

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
Response:

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

References:

1. Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
2. Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

---

Claim CB902:
Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
Source:
Wallace, Timothy, 2002. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. http://www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.asp
Response:

1. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

2. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

Further Reading:
Wilkins, John, 1997. Macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Answer 5

First of all, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. That's physics, not biology. The fact that "Darwinists" cannot explain the origin of life does not make evolution wrong and "Intelligent Design" correct; it simply means that scientists do not know yet. The major problem I have with Intelligent Design is a lack of evidence and its inability to be proven or disproven, therefore making it NOT science. Another problem with Intelligent Design is, who designed the designer? If the answer is "the designer was always there", then why not skip the step?

Answer 6

Well Intelligent Design is not a stupid alternative, it takes some intelligence to come up with it. However it is a deeply unsatisfying explanation as, basically, its no explanation at all.

Take the eye. We are told that this must have been intelligently designed because it is to complex to arise by natural means. And what about the two you are using to read this? They arose by natural means.

"Ah but that's different". And so it is: we KNOW WHAT THE NATURAL MEANS ARE. All intelligent design actually says is "we don't know". Actually it means more than that, it means : "we don't know and we are not going to try and find out".

Science tries to find natural laws that govern things. To do that science must assume that they are there to be discovered. You may not find them, but you look for them and you keep looking.

Answer 7

What is the Intelligent Design explanation for the countless species of animals that have gone extinct throughout the history of the world?
What is the Intelligent Design explanation for junk DNA?
What is the Intelligent Design explanation for useless body parts in human beings (the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc.)?
...Heck, what is the Intelligent Design explanation for the Dodo?

The link below has even more examples -- examples of POOR design, not intelligent design. I'm not an expert on evolution, but ID just doesn't hold up.

Answer 8

A lot can be said about macro-evolution, but obviously not by you.

You really are not scientifically literate, are you?

Here are just a couple points to help your education:

1.) evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or with anything non-biological that is in the universe

2.) evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life

Since these are two rather obvious and critical issues, you might want to learn a little before spouting off. This is, of course, unless you enjoy the sound of people laughing at you.

Answer 9

Intelligent Design is not intelligent Some one pointed out Creationist have begin calling It ID the first two letters of the word IDiot. It is just an attempt to try and sneak religion in public schools. I don't think my children should be taught religion though I donut have any children, someday I might.

Answer 10

Intelligent Design is for the unintelligent.

The fossil record including thousands of transitional forms and genetic homology indicate evolution.
Irreducible complexity is undemonstrated in biological systems.
Cyclical changes reflect the climactic shifts and other global changes.
Evolution is sound independent of knowledge of the origin of life.

Despite these facts, the ignorant propagate lies to mask their lack of understanding or refusal to understand.

Answer 11

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You should read a book on evolutionary biology and/or genetics.

C&Ping from websites, no matter how flowery the language might be, doesn't hide the fact that the reasoning is flawed, the hypothesis is bad and the logic is non-existent.