Look at dogs. That is what controlled breeding did to wolves--turned them into terriers. And in a mere few thousand years. Look at corn--originally corn cobs were the size of your pinky. Just as cows used to be the size of ponies. Selective breeding achieves in a few centuries or so the kinds of genetic changes that do occur in nature (usually over much longer periods of time).
The reason so many pesticides eventually prove ineffective--and, troublingly, some diseases are so very resistant to vaccines--is that the organisms involve CHANGE.
Now, look at the fossil record. Not just at the fossils, but at the geology of where fossils are found. Patterns of change clearly exist and they often go hand-in-hand with environmental changes. Entire species die out, or become something else. New species show up (one reason--hybrids that are occasionally fully viable) while differences in size, color, behavior, etc. continually happen.
Like any other branch of science, evolutionary biology does not have all the answers. Nor does it pretend to. Science is about asking questions and finding answers, not claiming to have them all already.
"Intelligent Design" rests on a logical argument that has been recognized as flawed for centuries. It goes like this: If I find a watch, obviously somebody made it. That somebody is the watch's Creator (i.e. Intelligent Designer). Assume the universe is a watch and the creator then is God. But--in the real world, the someone-who-made-the-watch was also made. At the very least by his parents. And they were made by their parents, and so on. So, using the same analogy, who made God? Who made the Creator or Intelligent Designer? Advocates of this theory claim that no one made him--but if God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe need one? It is called the argument for a "First Cause," namely that there must be a first cause to everything. But no one has ever offered a good reason to suppose why a first cause is even remotely necessary--or possible.
(Mind you, I'm a Christian--and am constantly frustrated by people treating the Bible as a science textbook and God as nothing more than a super-duper version of Santa Claus)
2007-05-14 03:33:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by zahir13 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
As a starting point I recommend Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who set out to prove that God was all nonsense but through his interviews with academics became a Christian because of the proof.
2007-05-14 03:19:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by sonfai81 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Evolution: mounds of scientific evidence.
Intelligent Design: mounds of religion without scientific fact.
This term is a new label "not a believer in evolution".
Observable, empirical, measurable are all scientific lingo, poiting towards Evolution.
Believing in Evolution does not negate the ability to be a religious person. People tend to strong opinions as to their preferences in these two arenas; it is unwise to tell either side not to believe what they have chosen to believe in.
2007-05-14 03:27:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by xwdguy 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Intelligent Design:
Nada
2007-05-14 03:18:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Design something right now using your own intelligence and there you'll have proof.
Lead Evolutionist Richard Dawkins in a documentary once stated,
"evolution was probably started by another high-intelligent race that had evolved."
2014-02-13 16:56:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by adam 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
dude plz have u ever heard of fossils. Bones have been found of homosapiens (humans) from 3 million years back and there are significant changes from then to now. For example the size of the skull was smaller then.
2007-05-14 19:59:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am the "observable, empirical, and measurable evidence" for the truth of intelligent desgin... because I have breath in me and I am alive. I am proof enough of God's existance!!!
.
2007-05-14 03:20:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
To counteract the simply masses of observable, empirical, and measurable evidence for creation?
I assume those down-thumbs cam from people who did not actually read my answer with sufficient care.
We are still waiting for your observable, empirical, and measurable evidence for creation.
.
2007-05-14 03:25:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by abetterfate 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I don't know. But evolution at least follows the scientific method. try reading this book:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/otoos11.txt
2007-05-14 03:22:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by James 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Science is not about proof. ID is not even about evidence.
2007-05-14 03:20:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by Fred 7
·
1⤊
0⤋