What are you thoughts on Intelligent Design?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071226232923AAJW3qH&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwLbJhEOo.STfXnNnG56L_QkTm7IMPmVyx7w--&paid=asked&msgr_status=

Answer 1

The biggest problem with ID it is here is no actual evidence. The illusion of evidence is based on the false logic of assuming that absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence. For example, after an ID'er declares "a natural explanation is to haaaard; it must have been designed", if one cannot provide evidence for a detailed causal chain of events that constitutes a natural explanation for the origin of a given phenomenon, then the ID'er takes that as evidence that the chain of events is not natural - that is, artificial or supernatural. One problem with this is that such "evidence" increases the *less* we know. That means the "evidence" for ID was stronger in the 1700's than it is now, based on this logic, because fewer things could be explained in terms of natural processes then. Increasing actual evidence logically requires one's knowledge to increase, not decrease.

Another problem is that ID cannot be disproven assuming such a standard of evidence. Since we will never be able to explain *everything*, there will always be "evidence" of ID out there waiting to be "discovered" (the Discover Institute is named after this never ending process). As one thing after another is explained in natural terms, the ID'er will simply move on to the next unexplained thing as "evidence" of ID. So far, they've gone from the missing link, to the human eye, to the bacterium flagellum, and now they're at the human immune system, where their demand for an explanation is at the biochemical level.

Answer 2

Science is based on reasoning and then tested with experiments to determine where are the facts.

Intelligent Design is wishful thinking. Based on a desire to position 'us' as the best or the most something over everything else.

If we are so intelligent, why do we of all creatures need clothes? What horror or atrocity will intelligent design justify?

Were there mistakes in this design?

Intelligent Design is like all the other pseudo sciences - it is about power - and most assuredly not enlightenment.

Why not return to our original form and evolve to live on this world as it is? I would prefer callouses instead of shoes. I would love a coat of hair which adjusted as I needed. Imagine being unable to get sick. Swimming with the dolphins and keeping up, if not passing them by.

Why would any of this stop us from learning?

Imagine what we could have become if we chose not to exploit each other. We consider selling ice to Eskimos an achievement, it is an abomination.

Answer 3

> Both sides ought to be properly taught
There's no direct evidence for Intelligent Design, no corroborating evidence for the Intelligent Designer(s). I figure it should take about five minutes of classroom time to discuss exactly why Intelligent Design isn't science, and I agree that these five minutes should be taken.

I read the Michael Behe book. I do not agree with his conclusions. But, his book made me think. Thinking isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Answer 4

Ideas related to "intelligent design" are perfectly fine as long as they remain in the realm of faith, philosophy, speculation, et cetera. The danger comes when agenda-driven fundamentalists try to pass I.D. off as "science", confusing school boards, parents, children, and the general public as to the true nature of science.

Answer 5

It is inconsistent with the fundamental laws of physics such as the Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle which has ample of emperical evidence.

Answer 6

I agree with novangel who posted above me. I was going to respond that I think Intelligent Design is "Creation Lite".

Answer 7

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.

Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most 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. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription, a newspaper article, or a computer program, we know there was an intelligent agent behind that information.

And 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.

As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role. In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.”

And 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

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 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. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

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 a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.

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

Many people have the problem of not making a distinction between the evidence and the implications. ID may have unsavory theological implications, and so many people simply reject it or dismiss it as religion. But implications don't decide the truth of theories—evidence does. As Dr. Stephen Meyer has said, “The evidence is one thing; the implications are another. We want you to settle the discussion on the basis of the evidence.”

Answer 8

Repackaged Creationism with some pseudoscientific jargon.

Answer 9

In my view, it's a load of crap.