Yes.<><
2007-06-23 16:14:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by funnana 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
Why would it be more logical to leap to the illogical, scientifically unprovable answer?
Evolution is a form of design, where form follows function through an adaptive process where successful mutations and refinements genetically succeed and the failures die out. The design is a function of environmental adaption and successful exploitation of resource niches. There does not have to be a designer (and, in fact, there isn't) for this to occur.
2007-06-23 16:20:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nodality 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
If there is a designer, His schematics were flawed. The most common example I see for Intelligent Design is the eye--an organ susceptible to more flaws and defects than most organs in the human body. Just ask the hundreds of millions who wear glasses. Even most fundamentalists would rather subscribe to evolution and adaptation than accept a flawed Creator.
Intelligent design is not intelligent, nor is it credible science.
2007-06-23 16:11:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
No. It would not at all be logical that there is a designer.
You need to start with a hypothesis, and then gather evidence. There is 150 years of evidence in favor of evolution. It is so totally overwhelming, and converges multiple fields of science that it is now completely and totally irrefutable by the scientific community. Even the Pope doesn't question evolution.
There is not a shred of evidence in favor that man was created by magic.
2007-06-23 16:10:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
No. It's necessary for any theory to explain why creatures appear to be purpose-built for their environments.
Evolution does this: over millions of years, animals grow into their ecological niches, and those with adaptation that make them better suited will survive at the expense of those less well suited. Result - appearance of design.
CD
2007-06-23 16:09:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Super Atheist 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
No.
Believe that someone design all the organism on this planet is less credible than they are self designed in a try and error process of evolution.
2007-06-23 16:09:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lost. at. Sea. 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
No.
Why use an infinitely complex explanation? Especially when it begs more questions than it answers.
When the recursive application of a very simple explanation produces the same results.
That is why they use the word "appearance" in there.
2007-06-23 16:07:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Simon T 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Dawkins is right - all living things except viruses conform to the seven properties of life, the purpose is survival.
Crick is also right - we adapt to our environment. That's why you have a computer.
2007-06-23 16:06:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Well it would be easier... and more convienient.
But, that isn't what science is about. Gotta leave that to religion.
2007-06-23 16:07:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by maggielynn 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
not really
2007-06-23 16:06:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bouken SocratiCat 6
·
2⤊
1⤋