What are the best arguments against Intelligent Design?

Answer 1

Check out this lovely picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CreationMuseum15.png ) of a diorama in the Creation Museum (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars ) showing Eve sitting in a very sexy frock next to an over sized velociraptor.

I also love the photo of a parent trying to help his child onto a saddled tricertops (http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/400/526893292_e95eb57c10.jpg ).

Answer 2

If you want a great arguement read "Man's Place in the Universe" Or, oddly enough A Short Histroy of Nearly Everything Here is an except that makes me believe in intelligent design. "What is extraordinary from our point of view is how well it turned out for us. If the universe had formed just a tiny bit differently--if gravity were fractionally stronger or weaker, if the expansion had proceeded just a little more slowly or swiftly--then there might never have been stable elements to make you and me and the ground we stand on. Had gravity been a trifle stronger, the universe itself might have collapsed like a badly erected tent, without precisely the right values to give it the right dimensions and density and component parts. Had it been weaker, however, nothing would have coalesced. The universe would have remained forever a dull, scattered void."

Answer 3

How about that it isn't supported in any way, shape, or form by evolutionary biologists. The few crackpot scientists who believe in this crap usually have a background in a science that is totally unrelated to evolution. Or how about the fact that even priests with a background in science support evolution? Maybe the fact that most scientists in the world believe in GOD is enough.

If you are looking for a good book that can tell you more, I highly recommend "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" by Petto and Godfrey. It is a collection of essays written by real scientists that examine ID not from a pulpit, but from a skeptical point of view and blow it away.

Answer 4

Here's one from Dr. Michael Shermer:

"The anatomy of the human eye...shows anything but "intelligence" in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses - which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. FOR OPTIMAL VISION, WHY WOULD AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER HAVE BUILT AN EYE UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS?" (emphasis mine).

If you're interested in more arguments against "Intelligent Design" buy "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. If you're asking this question just for the sake of asking, then don't.

Answer 5

No research has ever been conducted.

No peer reviewed papers have been published (except for one that slipped into a small, state journal, which was immediately pulled).

The argument is made in the public sphere, not from the lab.

All books on ID are for public consumption, written to instill doubt from a legalistic, rather than scientific approach.

And strongest of all, it is NOT science in the least, borne out by Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

Answer 6

Truth, all known facts, Reality, Logic, Reason, Intelligence itself, a respect for the seperation of subjects (we don't usually demand that we teach spanish in english lit class because it is stupid to do so).

Answer 7

99% of all life forms ever to have existed on this planet are extinct. A designer with a 99% failure rate isn't really what I'd call intelligent.

Answer 8

Pretty sad answers.

For those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

And for those who say Intelligent Design is not empirically testable and doesn't makes predictions, check this out: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html#more

And here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

Answer 9

All of it's arguments are based out of metaphysics, not science.

ID proponents like to show pictures of complex, beautiful looking organisms and say, "You think this happened by CHANCE?"

They forget that these creatures did not occur by chance, but through natural selection.

Answer 10

Intelligent design is a broad term, so it can't really be refuted completely, but there is no evidence for it so there is no need to debunk it.