What do you think about Intelligent Design?

Question

Yes or No doesn't cut it. Please explain why I should agree with your explanation.

Best Prez Ever = Intelligent Design ??? !

thetiltster -- I heard a guy in Andromeda say the samed darned thing. Heavens!

The Uncanny Comic -- Time not a constant. It is variable. Elastic.

Geezah -- Absolutely.

whirlingmerc -- sorry. That's nonsence. Find some better reading.

mathew -- Your logic does not compute. Its blather. Your premice disagrees with itself.

Glenda -- Didn't Lucifer, who was thrown from Heaven, also exist beyond God's creation.

Isaiah 14:4-23

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the scepter of the rulers. 6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, [and] none hindereth. 7 The whole earth is at rest, [and] is quiet: they break forth into singing. 8 Yes, the fir-trees rejoice at thee, [and] the cedars of Lebanon, [saying], Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. 9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. 10 All they shall speak and say to thee, Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like us? 11 Thy pomp is brought d

If one is to have faith in ID and therefor creationism and therefor God. And God is only explained by religion then, one must have faith in the Bible and agree therefor that the stories are true (however cruel and contradictory). I can't believe that!!!!!

Answer 1

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "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, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

William Paley is famous for using the design argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

The thing is, 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.”

The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

What about teaching it in school? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George W. Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies. Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

Answer 2

Let me ask you a couple questions. If you can, provide an honest answer. Don't force it.

- Why do humans have an inner conscience that tells us what is morally right and wrong, what is good and evil?

- How do you explain the emotions we feel when we look at a beautiful sunset or listen to a moving song? Why are we moved deeply in our hearts and souls?

- How does intelligent life form if there was no intelligence to start with?

- Why does outside force need to applied to build a car, why doesn't it just "build itself"? Why do the parts just not come "out of thin air" and attach themselves to make a working car?

- Why do we wonder if what we do has a purpose or makes a difference in the world?

Darwin doesn't answer any of these questions. Only an Intelligent God has all the answers to these and numerous other life questions.

Answer 3

There cannot be an infinite series of prior causes. There must, therefore, be a First Cause, itself uncaused. We call this First Cause God.

There cannot be an infinite series of previous movement. There must, therefore, be a Prime Mover, itself unmoved. We call this Prime Mover God.

All this and more from St. Thomas Aquinas...

Aquinas' First Argument, Motion
(1) Objects are in motion.

(2) If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.

(3) There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees.

(4) So there is a first, unmoved mover.

(5) Therefore, God exists.

Aquinas' Second Argument, Causality
(1) Some events cause other events.

(2) If an event happens, then it must be caused by something outside of itself.

(3) There can be no infinite cause/effect chains.

(4) So, there is a first, uncaused cause.

(5) Therefore God exists.

Aquinas' Third Argument, Contingency
(1) Contingent things exist.

(2) Each contingent thing has a time at which it fails to exist (contingent things are not omnipresent).

(3) So, if everything were contingent, there would be a time at which nothing exists (call this an empty time).

(4) That empty time would have been in the past.

(5) If the world were empty at one time, it would be empty forever after (a conservation principle).

(6) So, if everything were contingent, nothing would exist now.

(7) But clearly, the world is not empty (premise 1).

(8) So there exists a being who is not contingent.

(9) Hence, God exists.

Aquinas' Fourth Argument, Properties That Come in Degrees
(1) Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.

(2) If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.

(3) So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.

(4) Hence God exists.

Aquinas' Fifth Argument, From Design
(1) Among objects that act for an end, some have minds, whereas others do not.

(2) An object that acts for an end, but does not itself have a mind, must have been created by a being that has a mind.

(3) So there exists a being with a mind who designed all mindless objects that act for an end.

(4) Hence, God exists.

Answer 4

This is what I think. The Laws of Moses written in the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy found in The Torah, Bible and The Dead Sea Scrolls are instructions written from someone with advanced knowledge in microbiology mainly the germ theory in the spread of germs and disease in the human body 3500 years before mankind invented the microscope. This someone also had working knowledge of every land animal's internal digestive system independent but including humans to write out a diet plan that maximizes health and nutrition in humans. This some one also knew enough about the reproduction system of the female human body to write instructions explaining the difference between a woman's menstrual cycle and convalescence after childbirth and at the same time explain how disease is spread through surface contact with objects that the woman's expelled blood is on. This some one then wrote out a troubleshooting guide on identifying contagious skin diseases and isolating these sick people from the healthy ones. Then this some one goes on to explain how green mold and mildew growing on clothing and on walls of houses and on surfaces makes the house uninhabitable and the clothing unwearable until removed. This some one was also an expert in marine biology to know every species of water creatures and every insect on Earth to tell us which are healthy to eat as a food product for humans. It is quite clear that no human on Earth at that time and even now had the scientific knowledge to write these instructions. Which brings up the next question, Who did? It's quite clear that these instructions came from a non-human scientific mind of a Intelligent Designer that the Bible, Torah and The Dead Sea Scrolls are quoting speaking and teaching to a man named Moses as..." God".

Answer 5

No, doesn't cut it.

Now before all the God-believers give me a thumbs-down: please realize that "intelligent design" is not the same as theism. Theism is belief in God, which in and of itself doesn't contradict science. "Intelligent design" is a euphamism for creationism, the claim that a deity is the only explanation for what we see in the world.

"Intelligent Design" is just a bad attempt at trying to pass off religion as a science, in order to try to teach religion in science class. It is promoted and believed by people who never took the time to learn about science and/or have been duped into thinking science is a threat to their religion and morality.

"Intelligent Design" is NOT science, for the following reasons:

1) It does not allow itself to be hypothetically falsified. With all the sciences, you can at the very least say "Well if THIS happened, it would contradict what we know." Creationism is too vague and open-ended, because once you bring the notion of an omnipotent, invisible deity into the picture, you can explain away anything.

2) It does not follow the scientific method. Instead of gathering data, making hypotheses, and testing against those hypotheses to come up with a model of explanation, creationism starts with the conclusion ("God did it") and rationalizes away anything that might seem to contradict it.

3) It doesn't tell us anything about the world. All creationist websites do is desperately look for flaws in evolution, and think that this proves creationism by default. It doesn't.

Answer 6

Nature and god are the same thing, so I do not see what all the fight about? Everyone thinks they are right and they know. Time, space, and all this seperation are illusion. Everything is created out of one energy, I say who cares what the hell they teach in schools at this point. I mean come off it...its mostly all BS anyway. I didnt learn anything worth my time in school. I learned more from walking out deep in nature and eating scared mushrooms. That moment changed my life, I have never seen things in quite the same way since. Time, space, and the concept of the self melted away. I could see what was real and what was fake. Whats fake is much of what they teach you in school....things likes life is about getting a job and trying to make money. If people truley have glimsed truth then you shhould be sicken by the world. I mean look around, every town is strating to look the same....walmart, mcdonalds, shitty housing delvopments. We have become spiritually flat and a bunch of sheep. Why are we tearing the forests down to build pespi cola plants? Lets oepn are eyes and see that we have become a cancer to earth.. Cancer is defined as cells that show traits of uncontrolled groth and intrusion. Cancer is to our body, as what we have become to the earth. If that is true that it could it be okay to ask that maybe we are only a small part to something much bigger? i mean do you think cells have any idea what they do is part of soemthing bigger. What greedy people and cancer cells, do not see, is that if you kill you palce for living, then you are die as well. Maybe that is how thing have to be....all thing must pass. Every thing must die, be it cells, animals, stars, or univeres. Lets quit the blame game then okay? I mean we are all at fault, no one group is to blame. It dosnt matter what you bealive, in only matters how you act

Answer 7

First part:

It's a no-brainer. Literally.

There's no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution by natural selection. It's so important to so many of the biological sciences that biology doesn't make sense without it -- therefore, anyone who wants to displace it will need to come up with something very very veryveryveryvery good.

ID has performed no research, produced no studies, just whines about what's allegedly missing from the ToE. That's not enough to qualify as science.

Second part:

You SHOULDN'T agree with my explanation. You have a mind of your own. Find out what it's for.

Good luck.

Answer 8

I am a christian so I do believe that God created everything. If you dont believe then hows this....Can you really believe that every living thing came from something not living. Or where did that first "thing" come from. There is no way that something so complex just developed this way. Scientists say the universe is in a state of decay, and if you believe in evolution then everything is supposed to be getting stronger. These two theories contradict each other. It is simple to realize that something or someone created things the way they are. My belief is in Christ but you dont have to believe that to see a higher power at work.

Answer 9

Ricky, baby, you don't need to should/ought/must do anything you don't feel like doing.
I tend not to use such words when I'm talking let alone typing.
It's about making slaves of people and it's not my thing.

I see it is your thing though.
Believe what you want, Ricky.
As an atheist I require proof for my belief and GODDIDIT just doesn't cut it cos the question always comes back to who made 'god' and why.
I'm sure that's far too deep for you so you just stick with GODDIDIT.

Answer 10

It's a fraud. It's the Biblical story of genesis with a new suit of clothes. It has no scientific basis and in fact ignores the gigantic volume of data that supports evolution and historical geology. It's authors seek to fool borderline intellects and naive school boards. It has had very little success.