What is some evidence for intelligent design?

Answer 1

There is no such evidence.
Unless you consider mythology and fairy-tales to be "evidence". And I certainly don't.
Take a look at mainworry's answer for a perfect example. It basically boils down to "a pretty puppy is proof of god's existence" which is not only wrong, but utterly childish.
Thankfully, he's part of an ever-growing minority.

Answer 2

Physics, chemistry, biology. Things work so well, many humans can not comprehend the subjects very well-yet everything works according to those scientific laws. The idea behind intelligent design is that things are so complex an intelligent being had to design them. When you think of the human body, all the many parts that make it up, the cells that themselves make up the parts and evolution itself - it's unlikely that something so complex would evolve naturally without any design or intelligence behind it.,hence our bodies themselves are evidence of intelligent design. Of course, if you ask an atheist,they will tell you none but there were those that thought there was absolutely no evidence the earth was round too.

Answer 3

People, people, we seem to have our twickers in a monumental knist.

Reading through the answers so far it appears that we have polarised the 'Intelligent Design' debate into a schism between the 'Godly' and the 'Ungodly'.

Can we not accept the possibility that inifinite miracle of the variety of life on this beautiful planet has some deep and real meaning, that the wonder of the fact that no two ice crystals are identical, that none of the 6 billion people manifested here share the same fingerprints, or DNA , might mean that there is underlying purpose.

That it might mean that we didn't just materialise, over vast amounts of time from electrified pond scum ?

Do consider that life is not random chance does not mean the acceptance of some dogma-ridden, super-annuated, superstition-soaked control system.

Anyone who has followed just a few of my offerings here will have discovered that I am not in any sense one of the chorus of the 'Godly'. However to argue that Darwin's almost entirely misconstrued work on 'selection' means that we all derive from the amoeba is as pathetic as the name-calling of those that dare to challenge it.

I read people saying that 'Science' has said this or that, poppyc*ck ! Science has pronounced no such thing with regard to evolution, or many other of the related theories. What has happened is that the agendas of the anti-religious have driven them to follow the exact same bogus tactics that religionists use.

Science is frequently toted like religion these days, it has become, in short, a belief system. Which, for anyone who has bothered to check is the exact antithesis of what science actually means. True science is the art of constantly questioning everything, of never accepting a fixed position on any matter, but perpetually investigating to see if a better understanding may be reached.

Great scientists over the centuries have got themselves into much trouble with dogma, and religion, and have had to tread very carefully to avoid the flaming embers around the stake. But nevertheless, real science has progressed apace, and continues to do so.

I beleive that we will come to a 'better' understanding of how the teeming variety of species came into being, and how the myriad versions of each kind that have flourished, and I am quite sure that the accidental explanation will be a great joke of the future.

Personally ? I see evidence all around me, all of the time. Even you lot, verbally beating each others brains out are yet more evidence.

I also believe that the reproductive process of the humble amoeba may also be quite an accurate analogy for how the 'intelligent' part has multiplied from it's singular origin as 'First Thought' to its multi-gazillion manifestations as us, and all the 'others' just like as, energetically, of course, most of 'us' don't look like us at all, physically, I mean.

Besides, these days even jeans have 'designers' !

Answer 4

If predators and prey animals didn't get eyes at the same time the both could not have possibly survived, and it defies all logic to believe that animals that "evolved" in separate evolutionary lines would develop such a complicated feature at exactly the same time. Evolution explains how the animals and plants God designed have changed since God designed the prototypes. God also created evolution so life forms could change with a changing environment, but without the original designs being in place, evolution could not occur. The lions with eyes would kill every blind gazelle.

Answer 5

There is none.

IDiot design is religious/political scam to get religion taught in our public schools by circumventing the Constitution.

The father of the modern ID movement, Phillip Johnson, even said that is the whole idea for ID.

Answer 6

do you believe in a completely unmiraculous big bang?. the law of angular momentum dictates a spinning object which breaks apart must have ALL pieces that fly off spinning the same way (ie. clockwise =clockwise ).
just look at the solar system. yes, all planets go in the same direction, but... two or three rotate opposite the of group. likewise with many of the moons, and entire galaxies. this breaks a law no different from gravity, etc

Answer 7

go to www.evolution-facts.org. It gives a lot of good information on this issue from a scientific standpoint instead of a christian.

If you go to the handbook section, it will give evidence from the big bang and on of why evolution does not hold up. There are quotes from evolutionists and nonevolutionists. Anything you need to know about the facts against evolution can be found here. They do a better job explaining it than I can.

Answer 8

If an entity has intelligence it does not intelligently design a flawed product and then wish eternal torture to that product because it is flawed. However, a product that evolves may someday be perfect and escape such an entity.

Answer 9

Despite people trying to deny the obvious, there is plenty of evidence for intellegent design, (much more than for evolution that has been REPEATEDLY disproved). Many people mistakenly assume that "intellegent design" means "creation" which is completely false. This is just one way of trying to "disprove" a theory because you don't like whoever happens to agree with it. Here is the idea in a nutshell, though numerous books have been written on the subject.

1. An interdependence of all species. "Primitive" life forms depend on more "advanced" life forms, and vice versa. "Primitive bacteria could not have formed with more advanced species to live off of.
2. The fact that many biological processes are balanced so that ANY variation one way or another would cause death/extinction. This is true both on an individual and species level. For instance, look at blood clotting. If blood clots too readilly, a person will die almost instantly from strokes caused by blood clots. If blood clots a little too slowly, a human will bleed to death from the simplest cut. For human blood to clot 22 different protiens are needed. If any of them are missing, a person will readily die. If blood clots too quickly, a person will quickly die. Also, on a species level if a species is too adept at reproducing, the resources necessary for survival are eliminated and the species dies out. If a species is not able to reproduce quickly enough, the slightest environmental stress like an unusually cold winter is likely to push it toward extinction as well.
3. An absolute lack of ability for life as we know it to come from inorganic material. Formaldehyde, a technically "organic" molecule CAN be formed from certain inorganic chemicals and electricity, but formaldehyde is not used in any organic process and is highly toxic to living organisms.
4. Geological evidence shows a sudden increase in species, not a gradual increase over millenia. (The Cambrian Explosion)

Though not a true bit of evidence, there is NO viable theory that can be presented to show any other orgin for life on this planet. If you're thinking about evolution, consider the following facts.
-- Geological evidence shows that in CERTAIN REGIONS (in North America) humans and mammals pre-dated the dinosaurs. In other places evidence shows co-existence before extinction. This completely blows the "this came from that" part of the theory for mammals and birds and wipes out ALL accepted evolution timelines.
-- There is a SEVERE lack of evidence of transitional or "dead end" species. Random mutations would have produced Billions to trillions of transitional/dead end species. Millions upon millions of these would have left fossils. So far there is one poor extinct lizard/bird (likely JUST an extinct species) that is claimed to represent this entire CRITICAL part of the theory of evolution.
We have a wealth of fossils from before the sudden increase in life (the Cambrian explosion) and a wealth of fossils from afterwards, but the period that is claimed to represent Billions of years of evolution in between is not represented at all.
-- Transitional developments would need to be adaptive. For instance while "evolving eyes" ALL the intermediate developments would have to produce more survival/reproductive benefits than the leaner/meaner animals competing for the same resources. Ditto for "evolving" ears, hearts, lungs, etc.

Darwin touched on the lack of transitional fossils in his writings claiming that such fossils would eventually be found. Despite well over a hundred years of frantic and desperate searching by a virtual army of researchers, (who would be immortalized for ANY such find), this has not been shown to be true. Evolution was only a viable theory during the ignorance of Victorian times. Since then the weight of scientific evidence has shown evolution to be at best, highly unlikely. Despite the atheists and other "true believers" who refuse to acknowledge the truth, evolution has been disproved.

Answer 10

The complexity of space,atoms, human beings, an eyeball, a brain, the sun,a person's heart, people's communicative abilities,the senses etc. You can also check out the website reasons to believe.

Answer 11

No evidence. Just data that supports belief or disbelief. Science is no different than religion in that respect, as it too is subjective (go read David Hume).

I resent the idea that because I am deaf I am "senseless".