What evidence does Intelligent Design have besides "this about evolution is wrong"?

Question

Copy/pasted paragraphs and useless links (keyword: useless) will be reported as spam & advertisement.

Please, tell me what evidence there is for intelligent design. Saying something retarded like "NEANDERTHALS ARE MEN WITH RICKETS" is not evidence for intelligent design; aside from being untrue, it could only be evidence that something in particular about evolution is wrong.

I don't think you people understand. If evolution is false, it doesn't follow that intelligent design is true. I want to know why intelligent design thinks its true; not why evolution is false.

Answer 1

It's called the Bible. Intelligent design, in my own scientific mind, is a fabrication of the conservative mind. It is an attempt to bring creationism into science. Let me tell all of you ID *****es out there, science and I are ready to take on you. We have real facts behind us and are open to new ideas. Religion has always tried to undermine science and to eliminate its objectivity (heliocentric theory, gravity, evolution, global warming, etc.). We'll take on you and your bibles (not Bibles) anyday. The Apocalypse is upon you, and prepare for your demise....

Answer 2

What would you like a 50 page dissertation here? No links, no pastes, another words no answer as far as your concerned. There is a lot of evidence for creation and a lot that evolution cannot explain. Start with the very Principal of evolution, slow change due to mutation and adaption. biology has proven that Mutation is almost always degenerate and destroys or reduces the cell, but you believe this accounts for evolution? So beneficial mutation only works for evolution, but is negative for everything else. That's good. you can't find the fossil record, so you now come up with a brand new theory of punctuated equilibrium. Sudden leaps in the evolutionary process. Well if it leaps we should be able to see one of those leaps. Not. Entropy is a scientific fact. Biologists, physics, chemists all agree with the principle of Entropy ( decreasing complexity) is a universal truth. Yet for evolution to work or be true you would have to have an increase in complexity. Totally against science for both to be true. You can not have increasing complexity, evolution, in a world governed by entropy. Which science do you believe?
BTW- Most paleontologists now say that if Neanderthal man was on earth today he would be a little shorter and stockier than average, but they doubt you would notice them in a crowd. Get off the 70's science

Answer 3

None, and that's the problem. Intelligent design is derivative of creation science which in turn is derivative of creationism. All three of these paradigms have tasken the position that there are only two ways to account for the variety of species on our planet: evolution or special creation.

Since intelligent design has been unable to come up with any scientific support for its hypothesis, it has taken the position that finding unexplained or ill-explained issues in the evolution model is ipso facto proof of intelligent design. This is not the way science works.

Look at the two main approaches ID has taken: what they called "irreducible complexity" and probability.

The irreducible complexity argument says there are things (like the eye) that couldn't have arisen by "chance" or random mutation. But evolution doesn't say that it did and can trace the eye and its survival advantages from small light sensitive spots up through the complex organ.

The second argument from probability is that a given complex protein would have taken billions of years to come together by chance. But again evolution does not say it did. The probability to create a given protein may be low, but there are many, many proteins that could have created the same biochemical outcome. Plus, once amino acids start to link, the probability of the next amino acid coming in is not random, but controlled by the chemical and physical properties of the ones already there. Think the structure of the double helix where bonds across the helix determine what amino acid can be in what place.

Even creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute have given up on ID as a good argument, instead saying that schools should "teach the controversy".

But amongst scientists there is no controversy. Evolution is it.

Answer 4

There is not one shred of evidence supporting creationism. Everything that I'm aware of from creation falls into the following categories: 1) Evolution can't explain.... (appeal to ignorance) 2) Evolution can't explain where the universe came from (red herring) 3) What is the use of half an eye? (personal incredulity masquerading as irreducible complexity) 4) There are no transitional species (false assertion) 5) If a whirlwind goes through a junkyard, you don't get a Boeing 747 (strawman) 6) Darwin himself said that if the fossil record is the weakness in his theory. Since the fossil record doesn't support evolution, evolution is wrong (Quote mining; false assertion). 7) Rattling off academic jargon...therefore evolution is wrong (often quote mining. More often blinding with science fallacy)

Answer 5

Imagine a jigsaw puzzle that is almost completed. Not all the pieces are in, but it is fairly obvious what the picture is. (Dogs playing poker, for example.)

Science admits to the holes in that puzzle, and simply point out that we still have work to do to try and finish the picture. Regardless, its very obvious what the picture is.

Intellegent Design simply writes "God" in each misssing puzzle piece. If science later proves a certain mechanism, and fills the puzzle, then they move their God to a different hole in the puzzle. It is God in the Gaps all over again.

It never posits a different picture, nor does it have any explanation for all the other pieces in the puzzle. It completely ignores those, and only points to the few missing pieces. It is a version of the OJ defense, in that you stare so closely at each possible error that you forget what is really there...you lose the forest for the trees.

Answer 6

There is none. There has not been a single paper published in any of the peer-reviewed science journals on this. ID proponents love to talk about ID being a science without actually having to have any actual theories or evidence.

Answer 7

The concept of ID is seriously misguided, so whatever evidence they offer is irrelevant to me. There is absolutely no scientific experiment that we could concoct to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, we only dilute the study of science and the practice of Faith by trying to combine them.

For the health of both, they must remain separate. I think the ID crowd are going in the wrong direction and we must do whatever we can to keep them from taking our children down that misguided path.

Let us show more respect for our Faith and for science.

Answer 8

Scott Minich, one of the leading academics to champion ID, admitted under oath in the Dover trial that if the standard of science was relaxed far enough to include ID as a valid science, numerolohy, phrenology and astrology would also have to be considered sciences.

In other words, ID is about as scientific as your daily horoscope.

Answer 9

none its just the christian trying to get god into science and it has faild all over the world because god is a fairy tale and is not real

Answer 10

Here is a link for those that believe there are "no animals that evolved into others".

If you can read a cladogram, it is at the bottom of the page. If you can't read them, then you have no business criticizing evolution.

http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459

I know I didn't answer your question.