There is another term to be used for intelligent design, it is called "Genetic Engineering." It is simply the willful manipulation of the Genentic Code to derive a form of life that is desired.
Genetic Engineering is a live and active process. Intelligent Design is used only to designate the Genetic Engineering that occurred in long distant past. Whether it is by God, or Aliens, or, as I believe, Our Forefathers migrating from one world to another, it makes no difference, I.D. is proven by the very presence of Genetic Engineering. If we can do it, any culture so advanced could also do it. If you agree with the "Scientists that are Astronomers" then life could exist, even advanced life, on other worlds, and therefore, it is also a good likelihood that they also practice I.D. Just because the mainstream does not want to consider that possibility, does not remove it from a good scientific thought, as in "Theory".
2007-05-11 17:01:42 · 5 answers · asked by Vman 2040 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
You make a good analogy. Science does have evidence of an alternative explanation for some of the genetic variations we have observed. It's enough to explain adaptation, probably development of color vision, and things like that. It's not enough to explain the extremely wide range of lifeforms we know of. Claiming evolution did all that is just as much an idea without evidence as is intelligent design.
The similarity is even stronger when you go back and try to explain the origin of the DNA mechanism itself. Saying it just happened is even more of a stretch of the imagination than ID.
The real reason some people refuse to consider intelligent design as a possibility? They don't want to even consider the possibility that there is a God who has the right and authority to define morality, right and wrong, and to require obedience.
2007-05-11 17:41:19 · answer #1 · answered by Frank N 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because, my friend, it has no scientific evidence. How intelligent is it to attach the human retina backwards, if I were to genetically engineer something it would have the most effective and efficient means. Science uses a specific method, if evidence were to arise at some point, hinting at a possible designer then science would accept it and study it. Believing in something does not make it a fact, it takes evidence (solid evidence) and rationality.
I believe that their is a creator of the universe and time and all that jazz, however evolution is real whether it was ITS will or just laissez-faire is something we will never know as humans.
2007-05-11 17:12:53 · answer #2 · answered by Kerry Q 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What determines a "good scientific thought" is not whether or not the mainstream wants to consider a possibility.
The philosophical underpinnings of creation science automatically place it in a very different realm from natural science. The natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics and the like) begin with the assumption that nothing should be accepted as true for purposes of research unless it can be demonstrated reliably through observation or experiment.
Creation science, on the other hand, starts with the assumption that God created man, therefore it is not valid as a form of natural science.
2007-05-11 17:08:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
you have been lied to. Scientists are *no longer* leaving in the back of evolution - each and every piece of info we hit upon helps refine the thought. As somebody who works in the sector, i will say that scientists do no longer supply weight to "introduction technology" ranges for 2 reasons - they are non secular in nature (and because it is been stated, technology makes undesirable theology, and theology makes undesirable technology), and that they are just about in no way provided by potential of approved colleges. The "steadfast and hellbound atheists" area is likewise a lie. i comprehend many non secular Christians, Muslims, and Jews who settle for evolution. yet you do no longer ought to take my be conscious for it. thinking there are tens of hundreds of biologists and geologists engaged on evolution, in case you could checklist in basic terms a hundred people who've "switched over", then i'm going to close up. in basic terms undergo in suggestions that they ought to be a) revealed people who have been in sturdy status in the scientific community, and b) scientists in proper fields (i.e. biology is proper to evolution, on a similar time as electric engineering and physics are no longer).
2016-11-27 20:09:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where is anything but your " absence of evidence " put forward in support of this hypothesis.
2007-05-11 17:53:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋