"The world's too complicated and I don't feel like learning about it so I'm just gonna say that god did everything."
2007-03-02 12:47:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
I find it's quite rich for Randy to write that speculation and selective use of data are no substitute for evidence. Virtually all creationism, creation science and intelligent design evidence depends on selected use of data, carefully hiding relevant facts and quoting dozens of people out of context. That is of course where the evidence is not carefully misinterpreted or an outright fabrication.
The speculation comes in when the presenters of this evidence speculate that some eternal and all-powerful being/s is/are the primary cause.
While that may be correct or not, it is yet another step to argue that this primary cause is as described in the Koran, the Bible or any other religious text.
Yes, it is true that evolutionary theory has some holes. But the holes are closing up. The fact that we do not know something today is no reason to expect that it will never be known.
Another thing I note about Randy's post is the apparent conflation of the original appearance of life with evolution. This is typical of creationists. They are separate processes.
I've just read the material he linked to and I've seen it before. I reiterate my points about selected data and quoting out of context. There is no good evidence for intelligent design.
It might have been Prof. Dawkins who said that intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, though being English he might rather have said "dinner suit". I'd guess it put the suit on after it had laid down the white pointy hats, the white robes and the flaming crosses.
2007-03-02 17:43:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The term "intelligent design" is a legal dodge invented by political religionists after the US Supreme Court ruled that "creationism" may not be taught in public schools.
Obviously, no woman who has ever given birth, and no person who has ever had a migraine headache, knee trouble, or scoleosis would ever believe that the human body is "intelligently" designed.
There is no evidence that the universe was designed, above the level of the LOGOS, which is the basic set of logical rules that inform the laws of physics.
2007-03-02 15:40:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by aviophage 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Intelligent Design is just creationism in disguise. All the people who believe in it do so for religious reasons. There is not one single atheist that subscribes to it.
2007-03-02 12:49:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Very thought provoking question. Let's try this theory:
Too much goes on in this world, amongst humans, for it to be random evolution. There must be a plan in there somewhere, we're just to stupid and blindly egotistical to live out our destiny. Given our intellectual capacity, I would venture a guess that our destiny was not intended to be self destruction; or unanimous rule.
2007-03-06 05:50:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Icewomanblockstheshot 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Intelligent design is a fallacy. Evolution is how life evolved on earth. God planned life on earth and set it in motion, but evolution is how life developed on Earth.
2007-03-02 18:59:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kenneth H 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fact that the human brain is more powerful than any computer built by man automatically means there was something higher than man that must have designed us.
Think of just a human eye with optic nerve. A computer eye doesnt even come close to the complexity or ability.
Yes, there is a God.
Evoloution can still exist with God, because evolution can be one of Gods tools of creation.
Think about it. He must have created life to be able to adapt to different environments. Even other planets. So now there can be alien life as well, because aliens would be just another type of life form suited to their own planet, different from us only the way dogs or cats are different to us.
2007-03-02 12:49:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by brandontremain 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
Although I'm strongly against intelligent design (I think it's a theory which was invented to explain what could not be explained at the time, and is completely wrong), one which you could use is the simplest - where did life come from, if not from God?
2007-03-02 12:50:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Neilos 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
This website might help.
----------------------------------------------
In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, a fanatical atheist and a leading spokesman for Darwinian evolution, was asked if he could produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process which led to an increase in information. Although this has been known for some time to be a significant issue, during a recorded interview, Dawkins was unable to offer any such example of a documented increase in information resulting from a mutation.
After some months, Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes’ notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon’s work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.
After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!...
2007-03-02 12:48:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Randy G 7
·
1⤊
5⤋
argument of ignorance,
argument by lack of imagination,
argument from personal incredulity
2007-03-02 13:54:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by blinkky winkky 5
·
1⤊
1⤋