The myth that Flagellum bacteria are irreducible was shown to be completely wrong, as was their suggestion about blood clotting.
Chromosone #2 in the human genome was shown to be a merger between 2 other primate chromosones, thereby showing why we have a different number of chromosones from other primates.
"People & Pandas" was shown to be indentical to a pre 1987 version by the same title, except for the term "creator" being replaced by "designer" and "creation" by "intelligent design".
How can anyone cling to something so totally discredited?
2007-04-11 17:55:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
main source is this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Although it's all info I read a couple of years ago in New Scientist
2007-04-11 18:04:46 · update #1
Nicole, Intelligent Design is religious dogma, not science.
2007-04-11 18:05:36 · update #2
dog sneeze.., the ruling of the case clearly stated that I.D. is religion and NOT science.
2007-04-11 18:15:17 · update #3
The chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees also differ in a subtle but reliable way under a slightly more complex treatment known as C-banding. C-banding seems to mark specifically a few chromosomal zones containing highly redundant "junk" DNA sequences (satellite DNA). In the human the characteristic zones are at the middle, or centromere, of each chromosome... are slightly below the centromere on chromosomes 1, 9, and 16; and make up most of the Y chromosome.
We are the only species with such a pattern.
2007-04-11 18:13:56 · answer #1 · answered by Dan The Answer Man 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Intelligent design is for some a rationale for believing in God. It doesn't answer questions that only faith can answer and therefore it's on the same level as the philosophical explanations such as Pascal's Wager, an argument to persuade agnostics, made by those who hold the belief that God will save some by intelligent argument, and it is intelligence that responds to the brilliant intricacies of the creation with an affirming awe of the creator. That is the end of intelligence, after all.
2007-04-11 18:07:01 · answer #2 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1) No, there is only one Designer. 2) If you see poor design in the universe, it is not because of the designer not being omnipotent or benevolent. He knew exactly what he was doing when he created the universe and mankind. No the designer did not intentionally add your so called bad designs for an unknown purpose. The reason that you may see a poor design, is because mankind sinned against a Holy and Righteous God. When sin entered the world, all sickness and disease entered the world as well. That is why one might think that the world is flawed.
2016-05-18 00:04:01 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent design is not a new theory or vocabulary word designed by creationist . Plato & Socrates debated design. Over 100 years ago Oxford scholar F.C.S. Schiller employed it in an 1897 essay,writing..".it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design"
The laws of nature reveal that they are exquisitely fine tuned for life. It also reveals that while life needs a finely tuned set of physical constants it apparently also needs something only intelligience can provide-information. Critics of intelligent design could do with more of it.
Einstein acknowledged "that the mind behind the universe is a ' SUPERINTELLIGENCE of such superiorty that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.' Scientest are also in awe at the incredible genius behind the universe,amazed at the power within the cosmos, but even more in awe of the power required to create & control it all.
Are we accidents or are we special? I will cling to my Creator, who has a personal relationship with me. How can one discredit the vast knowlege of science that proves otherwise? And the personal knowledge that He is The Great "I Am"?
2007-04-11 19:10:05 · answer #4 · answered by Faith walker 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The ruling of the case was that teaching ID in public schools violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. It didn't say anything about truth, science, or whatever you are trolling for at this time.
2007-04-11 18:08:00 · answer #5 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why do you seem to worry so much about what I cling to ????
or all the other people cling to, you won't be able to change their minds, so WHY?
that saying " Do you want to prove you are right, or do you want peace??" can work here as well you know
love your avatar
2007-04-11 19:09:46 · answer #6 · answered by ausblue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same way they cling on to false ideas about and by their bible. They don't even udnerstand where the creation myths of the bible come from.
2007-04-11 17:59:42 · answer #7 · answered by Pint 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Creationism is a religion, and its doctrines will be defended, even when reality contradicts it. Intelligent Design, as you said, is just reworded Creationism.
2007-04-11 18:01:39 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If you want to see some scientific data that takes the other side...check out www.coreresearch and www.creationnetwork.org. plus the other sites listed. Some amazing coincidences? Or another option to the theories you promoted?
2007-04-11 18:07:16 · answer #9 · answered by Poohcat1 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
To say 'totally discredited' is over the edge, eh?
It is easier to believe the bible rather than disprove everthing you are saying. I really prefer to believe God !!! No offence, just my perspective.
2007-04-11 18:07:10 · answer #10 · answered by rapturefuture 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋