Evolution vs. Intelligent Design?

Question

How can i compare and contrast these two theories (Theory of evolution vs. Theory of Intelligent Design) in a two page essay form? any help is strongly appreciated. If you have any references to what you give me, that would help a lot also... Serious answers please! :)

~Thanx~

Answer 1

OMG, there is a lot of nonsense already posted on this page!

A tough task will be to distinguish the nonsense from the actual science. This is why I *deplore* assignments like this in high school *science* classes ... the end result can only be *confusion* ... which is precisely what the creationists want ... and there is nothing more despicable that teaching for the express purpose of *confusing* the student.

Let me give you some examples:

THA wrote: "WHEN anthropologists dig in the earth and find a triangular piece of sharp flint, they conclude that it must have been designed by someone to be the tip of an arrow."

So far so good.

"Such things designed for a purpose, scientists agree, could not be products of chance. When it comes to living things, however, the same logic is often abandoned. A designer is not considered necessary. But the simplest single-celled organism, or just the DNA of its genetic code, is far more complex than a shaped piece of flint."

Ack no! This is TERRIBLE logic. The issue of *complexity* has nothing to do with recognizing design. A snowflake is also far more complex than a spearhead, but nobody would say that a snowflake is a product of design ... it is just the result of well-known properties of water crystalization. What matters is not the *complexity* of the object, but whether there is a natural *mechanism* or *process* by which such an object can come about. There is no known natural mechanism or process that can produce a triangular piece of flint. But there is a known natural mechanism or process that can produce a snowflake (water crystalization) or any single-celled organism or piece of DNA found in nature (the natural process called natural selection ... successive improvements selected by nature over huge amounts of time).

THA continues: "Yet evolutionists insist that these had no designer but were shaped by a series of chance events."

'EVOLUTIONISTS' SAY NO SUCH THING! This is a common mistake made by creationists ... believing that evolution is entirely about "chance events." Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Evolution is about natural selection, which is NOT random and NOT a series of "chance events." There is nothing "chance" about the fact that advantageous traits tend to propagate more into the population. That's what nature does. It *selects* good traits, and *deselects* bad traits. Nothing random or "chance" about that process.

And the rest of THA's post goes downhill from there ... but I don't have enough space to answer them all point by point.

Bottom line: Watch out for posts like THA ... he is very, very confused ... and will only confuse you.

Steve wrote: "Its proponents KNOW it [intelligent design] to be a FACT and will not brook any degrading of it by calling it a theory to be "tested" by agnostics."

An excellent description of anti-science. First, calling something a theory in science is not "degrading" it ... to the contrary, it is *elevating* it by acknowledging that it has evidence. Second, science MUST subject things to be "tested". That is the *entire point* of science. That is why the theory of evolution is so incredibly strong ... it has been subjected to 150 years of relentless *testing* and it has passed every one with flying colors. Anybody who says that a statement should not be subjected to "testing" is making a non-scientific statement.

Next up, bladecrimson: "Intelligent Design has to do with something called irreducible complexity, which means there are certain biological systems that could not have developed according to evolution, ..."

The concept of 'irreducible complexity' is scientifically bogus! No scientist of worth believes there is any such thing. And yet it is the backbone of Intelligent Design arguments. Every single example of 'irreducible complexity' proposed, has been easily shown to be 'reducible.' All you have to do is break the structure down, not by *parts* (as ID advocates would have you do) but by incremental *steps* or *functions*. As long as every step has some functional advantage (a lens with *slightly* better focusing power, a retina with *slightly* more receptors for better acuity), then the issue of 'irreducible complexity' just reduces away ... and evaporates.

And notice again the focus on "complexity" rather than on the process that produces it. Again missing the point that nature can produce *incredible* complexity without need for invoking a divine "designer." COMPLEXITY ISN'T THE ISSUE.

bladecrimson continues: "Its hard to beleive that DNA just accidently fell together one day!!!"

Yes it's hard to believe it ... and evolution doesn't say it! Again ... presenting evolution as something like DNA "accidentally falling together one day" is just absurd. Again using words like "random", "chance", "accidental", when evolution is NOT random, chance, or accidental. And then adding to that a "suddenness" as if evolution could occur "one day." That isn't even *close* to what the theory of evolution says.

So bladecrimson also clearly doesn't understand evolution.

kellenraid wrote: "This may seem ludicrous at first blush, but ID and evolution are actually the same thing."

While I appreciate kellenraid's attempt to reconcile the two "theories" ... this doesn't get very far. His description goes on quite well until, out of the blue, he writes "Then by a process, as yet undefined but called devine intervention, the proteins became a unicelled creature. "

Ack! just out of the blue, we have "divine intervention". This isn't science! There are any of a half-dozen perfectly plausible theories that explain how proteins became unicellular creatures without just throwing up our hands and saying "divine intervention."

---

So enough picking on other people's answers... how do you compare evolution vs. intelligent design?

For your essay, concentrate on whether they are both correctly called "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. Look up the word "theory" in a *scientific* sense, and apply that definition to evolution and intelligent design.

A theory is just an "explanation supported by evidence."

Intelligent Design is neither an explanation of anything at all, nor is is supported by anything resembling evidence. When I say it is not an explanation, I mean that an explanation is a description of something in terms of something simpler. Intelligent Design is the *opposite* ... it is a description of something complex (e.g., the eye) in terms of something *more* complex (the designer). The designer, *by definition* is more complex than anything it supposedly designed ... so saying "the designer designed it" just moves the problem (explaining the eye) to a more difficult one (explaining the designer).

When I say it is unsupported by anything resembling evidence, I mean that it is nothing but a set of arguments *against* evolution. Even if these pieces of evidence were true (which they are not), a bunch of evidence against one theory does not provide evidence in favor of another theory. It is not enough to say that evolution can't explain the eye ... you have to show how your rival theory (intelligent design) provides a *better* explanation of the eye ... and again, just saying "a designer designed it" is not an explanation AT ALL, but just shifting the thing to be explained.

As for evolution, it absolutely *does* qualify as a "theory." Evolution explains a *huge* amount of evidence ... from the fossil record, to differences and commonalities in the DNA of every single organism on the planet, to vestigial structures, homologous structures, atavisms, embryological evidence, virology, bacteriology, immunology, pest-resistance, biogeography, etc. etc. There is so much evidence, that evolution is considered one of the strongest theories in the history of science.

For intelligent design to qualify as a theory ... it has to explain all of those things that evolution explains *plus* explain some things that evolution fails to explain.

For more information, see the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.therazor.org/oldroot/Spring02/evolution.htm

Answer 2

To answer, simple: evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design have no argument other than "God did it". The vast majority of creationists spend their time trying to disprove or discredit evolution rather than building a scientific case for their beliefs. "First I want to say this: that even most scientists will admit "that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Why? because it has not been proven." Actually, evolution itself is an confirmed, observable fact. The theory aspect of it is how it operated. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics/The Law of Entropy states that everything tends toward disorder. This is a law that Scientists discovered and know to be true." Yes, that holds in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, and it has an huge external power generator. "Also, if evolution is true, where did the first cell come from? Not to mention, the earth, the sun, our entire solar system, the Milky Way Galexy, and the universe as a whole. I somehow doubt that the big bang could create all of that by chance. And even if it did, what/who caused the big bang? These are all questions that evolutionist scientists can't answer. I find these questions to be to big for me to believe these scientists. There are, however, Scientists that believe in ID and they can answer all of these questions." The theory of evolution does not make statements of either the origins of life or the origin of the universe. Those would abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory. "I honestly believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design." No it doesn't. The evidence for evolution is well documented around the world. You only need to look it up. The "evidence" for Creationism is the Bible and appeal to emotion argument of "look around you, it's evident". "People say that the similarities in different animals are reason to believe in evolution. But if their was an intelligent designer of the world, it would make sense that they would use some of the same types of designs in different animals." Irrelevant "If you look at how buildings and bridges are made, they both have similar things in them. They often are both made with triangles. Why? because they help strengthen the structure. They also both use similar metals and other materials because they work well. Why would an intelligent designer not use the same principle when creating all the different animals in the world?" Why do humans have a vestigial organ that pretty much gets infected and can kill you? Why do our eyes have a blind spot on them due to our blood veins being backwards, when squids have perfect vision? Why do we have little toes? Why are some human babies born without faces? (Treacher Collins Syndrome) Why are some human babies born with tail bones? Why do whales have small leg bones?

Answer 3

1. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is a speculation. There is no direct evidence of an Intelligent Designer nor Intelligent Designer(s). Even if we stipulate that such did/do exist, we do not know when he/she/it/they acted, nor what actions he/she/it/they took at those times.

2. The Intelligent Design speculation suggests that there are biochemical structures and systems that are so complex that it would be difficult to imagine that they could have evolved. Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" gives several examples, including flagella and the blood clotting system.

3. a) I woke up this morning and put on my glasses. An intelligent design of my eyes would have included muscles to focus the eyes without the need for glasses.
b) When I was 25, I had my wisdom teeth out. An intelligent design of my jaw would have had space for all the teeth.
c) My friend had her appendix taken out. An intelligent design of the intestines would not have the appendix be so prone to infection.
d) Christopher Reeve was paralyzed for the rest of his life from a spinal injury. An intelligent design would have had a better repair mechanism for nervous tissue!

4. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see around us. Populations on islands are similar to, yet different from, the populations on the mainlands. You can read about "mutation," "genetic drift," and "selection" -- the things which can cause a population to diverge from its parent population.

5. Microevolution is fact. Point mutations can be induced in fruit flies, through the use of mutagenic chemicals, that breed true.

6. Intermediate evolution has been observed. My favorite example is mini-dachshunds. They're not wolves, but their ancestors were. A couple of mutations and a lot of selection went into making mini-dachshunds from the progenitor wolf species.
You can also look up corn and true-breeding triticale.

7. There is no mechanism that we know of that would prevent intermediate evolution from becoming macroevolution over a longer time frame.

8. The fossil record contains what many examples of what appear to be ancestral forms for modern species. Humans and horses are my favorites. Fossils of the ancestors provide a nice view of the changing features of the lineage.

Answer 4

This may seem ludicrous at first blush, but ID and evolution are actually the same thing. Let me explain: whether you think of God as nature (pantheism) or as an omnipotent white-haired benevolent creature in our image, how we got here was by evolution.
To compare and contrast, you need to know the basic parameters of each. For evolution you will need to show how DNA and mutation are connected; "survival of the fittest", the byline of evolution, is in actuality not a theory, but has been proven by experiment after experiment.
It will, if you are honest in your thesis, turn out that man, as we know him today was inevitable. What I mean is, think of the primordial soup that was the earth millions of years ago; the Earth had not cooled much and lightning and rain and mud were everywhere; it has been shown in a lab that the lightning into the carbon, phosphorous, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, etc will beget amino acids, the building blocks of protein. The AA's then, after a time, randomly "got together" and formed proteins. Then by a process, as yet undefined but called devine intervention, the proteins became a unicelled creature. Then multicelled creatured, etc, etc until some DNA sequences were able to survive and others selected out--the dinosaurs could not live after the asteroid/comet hit the earth 60 million years ago, but the smaller creatures and many sea-living creatures survived.
Time marches on and DNA favored an upright, bipedal, binocular creature who had sufficient mental capacity to survive using his brain (us...or some of us) rather than his brawn, swiftness, sharp teeth, etc.
I hope that his helps you.
At this point go to Wikipedia and down load intelligent design and then evolution/Darwin and look for keywords that you can use to contrast. Do a google search on "intelligent design vs evolution." Good luck.

Answer 5

"Intelligent Design" is NOT a "Theory" (capital "T") in the sense of a scientific theory, it is just an idea. A Theory is "testable" and (more significantly) disprovable. If evidence ever comes along that disproves one or more aspects of the Theory of Evolution, it will be peer-reviewed, and the Theory will be amended or tossed aside.

Answer 6

Intelligent Design has to do with something called irreducible complexity, which means there are certain biological systems that could not have developed according to evolution, evolution states that biological systems are built up upon simpler pre existing systems, but some systems with any of there components missing cease to function.
What makes more sense is that both concepts are equally true. Just because something is designed with intelligence doesn't mean it was God! Its hard to beleive that DNA just accidently fell together one day!!!

Answer 7

You people are going to make secretsause old before his time! Young lady, there is no theory of intelligent design; just some incoherent posturing. Not one peer reviewed publication will accept any ID nonsense for publication. There is nothing to compare and contrast. I noticed you got only one site. Go here for your " comparisons ".

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 8

there is an intelligent design running through life itself, its the life force.guided by God to create creatures, and here were trying our best to exterminate them, the baiji river dolphin was exterminated by those Chinese a few months ago and the Japanese are trying there best to kill as many whales as they can, its horrible, that's what people should be talking about and doing something about. is protecting Gods, are natures creatures before it to late for them.It doesn't matter who made us, what matters is what we do with what we have.
Peace

Answer 9

Intillegent design is basically a way to incorperate religion with evolution. Evolution is basically a regular scientific theory that not only doesn't include religion, it is the cornerstone of athiesism

Answer 10

A good place to start would be to stop refering to I/D as a "theory". Its proponents KNOW it to be a FACT and will not brook any degrading of it by calling it a theory to be "tested" by agnostics.