what is evolution's best argument against intelligent design?

Question

What is intelligent design's answer for the argument?

Answer 1

Evolution's best argument against intelligent design is the reality that there are a great many examples of UNintelligent design in nature, some downright stupid. Do we have a creator that is brilliant sometimes and other times a moron?

Answer 2

Intelligence is the best argument against intelligent design, I mean come on, seriously, do we have to point out the thousand and one flaws readily apparent when you try to substitute religion for science? Isn't it a little suspicious that at the core of EVERY religion is "You just have to take it on faith".

If there are 20 religions saying "you can only get to heaven (or it's equivalent) if you believe in US, (we are right and everyone else is wrong)..... THEN 19 of them HAVE TO BE WRONG BY DEFINITION!

Anyone who believes in intelligent design has to explain (adequately!) why the design includes serial killers, pedophiles, and mosquitoes - like some other bug couldn't serve as bird food?

If you believe in creationism (Intelligent design) then free will becomes bullpoop. How can you say a person has free will if they were born with the genetic make up designed by a supreme being into an environment that a supreme being knew would be there, and was in fact designed by that being?
Obviously that supreme being created or designed all the variables into that equation.

Intelligent design is the intellectual equivalent of dropping five feral, hungry, rabid weasels down your shorts and hopping for the best. If you had control over the entire universe, would you intelligently unleash something you HAD NO CONTROL over? If you did, then 1)you're not really all that smart, are you? and 2) You completely gave up the right to judge them since YOU GAVE THEM THE POWER to get in trouble in the first place. People need to focus more on Spiritualism instead of individual religions. Being spiritual makes sense, being an intellectual slave to political/religious/social dogma does not.

Answer 3

Intelligent Design is not real science and not a real scientific theory. It is a deliberate attempt to circumvent political intervention and use science as a back door to reintroduce religious belief back into schools. It uses pseudo scientific arguments like the mathematical probability of evolving an exact human is so remote that evolution is not possible. Also the human eye is so complex that it could not have evolved. Because of the issues of complexity and probability there must have been an architect, God.

Evolution does not rely upon an end plan of current humans. We evolved this way because of fitness under environmental conditions. This is not a guarantee that we will continue to evolve if conditions change. In nature, extinction is the general rule, evolution is the exception.
So the probability argument is also false.

The complexity argument cites false evidence to suggest that complex organs can not evolve. Comparative research by scientists has shown that it is possible and not nearly as complex as the Intelligent Design people would have you believe.

Answer 4

Have you heard of the Bahai Faith? Bahai's believe that there is an essential and necessary unity between science and religion. Religion should accord with reason, if it does not, how could the Divine Reality, who has created minds to be rational, hold them into account for not believing in something which reason cannot accept? In the view of the Bahai's , the greatest support of belief is understanding and the expansion of the mind, real faith is a condition which cannot actually be reached without first achieving understanding. True understanding alone leads to certitude, and the translation of belief into action.

Answer 5

sturdy success looking some thing. you will no longer get previous an atheist in this sort of dialogue by arguing that God's layout grew to become into customary by evolution, via fact it somewhat is rationalizing on the concept that God exists. The human eye is as stunning as the different eye. Stomatopods have 5 cases as many seen pigments; finch eyes concentration on circulate fairly than sort; nautili pupils substitute shape; great white sharks have darkish backs and white bellies. The final one looks unrelated, whether it somewhat is not any longer. Evolution is what animals place self assurance in to maintain up with one yet another on the nutrition chain. you need to argue that faith proves the falsity of evolution. Haha... ha... oh, humorous... yet no, it somewhat is incorrect additionally, i think.

Answer 6

The flawed notion that god is a designer at all. Or that god is singular, or that god had any intentions of creation, or that god is separate from us in any way. Any one of these notions gets you "stuck" in a closed framework with no possibility of growth.

From a religious perspective - and this is entirely subjective (of course) - god in many religions seems to have human intentions.

Whereas in pantheism, or dualistic pantheism, god and man are one, and thus, any attempt for man to discover its origins is an attempt on the part of god to understand itself. Since man is merely one aspect of god in the field of spacetime.

The notion that god has human intentions (outside of view of pantheism) is the most singularly egotistical fundamental problem - and that is why people who believe in evolution as an explanation to how we got here, allow for the possibility that god may or may not even have a consciousness as we can perceive it! Let alone a beard and a white robe.

Oh, and intelligent design can only rebute this notion by underscoring the same tenets of its theory that causes us to waste our time trying to debate it, day after day, year after year.

The only reason why this is still a debate, is the endless number of zeros that keep getting tacked on to the population. See "Waking Life".

Answer 7

Evolutionary theory does not argue with intelligent design. ID has no evidence to put forward in argument. All ID people do, is to attack stupidly.

Answer 8

Easy. Intelligent design has no evidence whatsoever, whereas there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. What does ID say? 'God did it'.

Answer 9

Our optic nerve comes from the FRONT of the retina, then plunges THROUGH the retina, in a hole which we perceive as the "blind spot."

No competent engineer would have designed the retina to be backward this way.

Intelligent Design's answer to this is bogus and not worthy of repetition.

Answer 10

That for "intelligent design" to be truth, the "creator" has to be kind of dumb. Why do male mammals have nipples?