Intelligent Design???

Question

To all of the believers of intelligent design:

What is the evidence for intelligent design? What are the "messages in the DNA"? What are the things that prove a designer? How are they tested?

It seems Jack has nothing to say on this matter.

Questions with questions - what a great way to fool the masses.

Need some support for evolution:
The Fossil Record
Morphological Convergence
Redundancy in the genetic code
Vestigial and suboptimal organs
Presence of pharangyeal slits in human embryos, presence of legs in snake embryos
Homologous structures
Genetic similarity
Genetic change
Morphological adaptation

Answer 1

Err, none.

Gee thanks, bsmsl, it had never occurred to me before to use "Focus on the Family" as a reliable source of scientific information. There I was painstakingly examining data from the voluminous peer reviewed scientific literature when I could have got everything I need to know from the web page of an anti-homosexual hate group from Colorado Springs.

How could I have been so blind? Life is so much simpler now!

And, err, if you have heard that Darwin "recanted the theory he authored", could I suggest you actually read one of the sites you referenced. Here you go: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source of scientific information, but at least they have the decency to repudiate a few of the most obvious of creationist lies. They deserve some credit for not being entirely shameless.

Answer 2

In reply to bsmsl...

"holes" in the fossil record:

The problem with this idea is that the more fossils scientists find, the more so-called holes there are. For example, a hole may exist between one fish species and another. If a scientist discovers an intermediate fossil, the creationist ignores evidence of a link and simply clams that there are now two gaps. If a scientist finds another intermediate fossil, the creationist claims a third gap. And so on and so on...

Irreducible Complexity:

...is not simply being complex. To be irreducibly complex means that an organism could not have evolved through a series of small genetic mutations that each benefit the organism. For example, something as complex as an eye could not have evolved if lesser attributes did not prove beneficial to the organism. That is to say... evolution takes relatively small steps and each step must benefit the organism. Got it..?

A wing is somewhat complex. You wouldn't see an evolutionary jump from no wing to a very complex wing. You'd see small changes, and each one would be more beneficial than the last. So partially formed wing may not allow an animal to fly, but it could save it from a fall from a tree, or may allow it to outmaneuver and escape a predator.

Answer 3

I truly believe that we as humans project our own tendencies to everything we do not understand. For example, intelligent design.
Because we can design things like space probes sky scrapers and super computers, the human tendency is to imagine something just like us designed us. This is proved by simple logic. We have no basis for comparison. I tend to weigh in on the side that we are the result of a combination of happy accidents.
But if there were a creator, who is to say that it didn't use these H A's as a method of creating us.
Can you see my logic? Since I have no facts to the contrary, I have no basis for comparison, therefore I have no logical answer.
Great question! I hope you keep looking until you find an answer which you can embrace as satisfactory.
I wish you nothing but positive, logically philosophical truths.

Answer 4

Just to blast holes in Darwin's theory. Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Do you know how long it takes to build up sediment? It doesn't take very long at all. Have you ever seen a fossilized cowboy boot or teddy bear? It doesn’t take long to fossilize an object either. The only thing in Darwin's theory that can be tested is "natural selection." Have you ever seen tusk less elephants? Google "tusk less elephants" in Africa and read up on it.

Answer 5

My little " feral mouse ", why are you asking this question in the biology section? You know as well as I that there is not one iota of evidence ID proponents can put forward, though they can incoherently rant on for days and days.
I see you are a grad student in zoology. I am an ethologist myself; Canid ethology. I also see that your are an OU booster. I only have two words for that. GO HUSKERS!!!

Answer 6

For starters, what evidence is there for evolution and can it be tested? None and no!!
Darwin gave two reason why his theory could be rejected. One was lack of support by fossils records. In his time, fossil records were very limited, and he thought some supported his theory. Since his time fossil records have greatly increased, but instead of filling in holes that existed in his time, they have only broken ties he assumed. There are more fossil holes now than there were in his time.
The other is the idea of irreducible complexity. This refers to things in a cell being able to develop by evolution. However, what has been found is that parts of cells - like a bacteria flagellum, are too complex. It's parts could not have evolved over time.
Consider finding a watch in the woods. Would you think that it was a freak hapenstance of nature? No! You would know there had been a watch maker. Why? Because its parts are too complex to have developed from tree bark, soil, and maybe a little rabbit fur.
By Darwin's own criteria, you can disregard his theory. I have heard that he recanted the theory he authored.
Also, many supporters of evolution have said that they know it to be impossible, but chose to believe it anyway because they don't want to face the alternative - intelligent design by God.
To answer your question, look at nature. It makes too much sense to have occurred randomly. The messages in DNA? - its mere existence. There is more information contained in a strand of DNA than in an encyclopedia.
You may find answersingenesis.com helpful.

.