English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I would like to get a better grasp of the Intelligent Design school of thought. I would like for you to list evidence to support this theory.

Please avoid a blanket statement such as "look around you, there has to be a Creator."

Thank you all in advance.

2007-08-10 01:23:15 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

6 answers

"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story.

Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

2007-08-12 15:49:23 · answer #1 · answered by Questioner 7 · 0 0

My pleasure.

I suggest you check out this website, for it explains far better than I could at this point: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

The basics are that the evidence of "science" actually provide better evidence for Creation than for evolution, if only students were taught the whole truth about how things are dated, among other things. Also, evolutionists try to use microevolution (variation in the appearance of the individual animals) to "support" their abiogenesis (getting life from non-living matter) theory of macroevolution (developing new life forms). It just doesn't work.

2007-08-10 08:57:03 · answer #2 · answered by NONAME 2 · 0 0

Your question tells me that you are either an agnostic or an atheist. Well-known scientists have discovered God. You only have to examine the hard evidence with an open mind and you too will find God. Go to the links below to discover the scientific truth of God.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

http://www.proofgodexists.org/

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientific-proof-of-god-faq.htm

http://www.geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/

http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp

http://www.meaning-of-life.info/?Source=ad

Albert Einstein wrote in his book "The World As I See It" that the harmony of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
He went on to write, "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
A very significant statement indeed, wouldn’t you say?

God wants to show how much he loves and cares for you. St. Augustine said, “our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” I, too, found God the hard way like St. Augustine. Seek him. He wants to embrace you.

Peace and every blessing!

2007-08-10 08:36:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Seems like a rather stupid design to me.

2007-08-10 08:27:06 · answer #4 · answered by M G 5 · 1 1

William Dempski has exquisitely profiled the spectrum of possibilities from certainty, "a probability of 1.0," to impossibility, "a probability of 0." (All events, by definition, lie between these two boundary conditions.) Figure 1 summarizes this spectrum:

When events are characterized by a high degree of certainty, we call them "scientific laws," such as gravity, etc. Most events, however, are characterized by some level of uncertainty, and the exploration of their likelihoods occupy the attention of statisticians, businessmen, and professional investigators dealing with the circumstances in the "real world."

When we encounter events that are extremely improbable - that is, highly unlikely to have occurred by unaided chance alone - we attribute them to deliberate design. If we walked into the kitchen and found a scattering of alphabet soup letters on the floor that spelled out a meaningful sentence, we would recognize that it was the deliberate handiwork of someone doing the spelling. Cryptography is also an example of exploring discoveries which are highly improbable to be attributed to chance as the rival conjecture.

If we encountered a series of ostensibly "random" letters, but discovered that some systematic transformation rendered them into a meaningful sentence, we would infer that someone had hidden that message there deliberately. Random chance would be deemed too unlikely to have caused that unaided.

The forensic debates in a courtroom also typically deal with rendering random chance as the unlikely contributor to the evidence which points to deliberate intent or design.

The discovery that our DNA codes are three-out-of-four, error-correcting codes, which are stored, retrieved, copied, and processed to instruct machines to fabricate the complex proteins that make up living organisms, has rendered any attribution to unaided chance as absurd in the extreme. (For those of our readers with advanced technical aptitudes, we strongly recommend the writings of William Dempski listed in the bibliography at the end of this article.)

Irreducible Complexity

Michael Behe has upset the comfort of the Darwinists by highlighting a design attribute that he terms "irreducible complexity." Consider, as an example, the familiar household mousetrap in figure 2.

This simple device consists of five essential parts: (1) a platform which holds (2) a hammer driven by (3) a spring when restrained by (4) a holding bar until released by (5) a catch. This basic design has defied attempts to simplify it further, or to reduce its complexity. The significant feature is that with only four of the five parts one cannot catch 4/5ths as many mice! Its function depends on each of its essential elements, each of which involve substantial precision in their specification. "Natural selection" cannot operate until there is something to select from.

Behe then presents an example of "irreducible complexity" from nature by reviewing the tiny motor that powers the flagellum, which propels a bacterium through the water:

Figure 3: This tiny mechanism, positioned to penetrate the bacterium's protective outer membrane, consists of over 40 parts - each of which are essential to its functioning. Figure 4 presents a functional equivalent: with any of its 40 parts missing, this mechanism would not be functional and would be a casualty in the processes of "natural selection" postulated by the Darwinists. The bacterium, dependent upon its locomotion, would be likewise.

So how did it come about? All the Darwinists can do is assert rather than explain.

The Miniature City

Darwinists love to postulate the "simple cell." With the advent of modern microbiology, we now know "there ain't any such thing." Even the simplest cell is complex beyond our imagining.

As Michael Denton has pointed out, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."4

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

All by chance? All without a Designer? (How do you define "absurd?")

When I was at the Ford Motor Company, one of our proudest assets was the famous River Rouge Plant in Dearborn. It was the largest totally integrated manufacturing facility in the world. With 97 miles of railroad within the plant, raw iron ore and limestone entered one end; the necessary steel, glass, and paint were manufactured within the facility. The entire cars (including the engines on automated lines) were fabricated within the plant, and new Mustangs came out the other end. Yet this entire complex pales in comparison to the elegant high order of design demonstrated in the simplest cell, which can also replicate itself in a matter of hours.

2007-08-10 08:27:35 · answer #5 · answered by Martin S 7 · 1 2

Ha ha ha ha ha!! You're funny... Thinking you're actually going to get an answer.... hehe.

2007-08-10 08:26:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers