regarding evolution and "intelligent design"...?

Question

...,int design people claim that natural selection and mutation can't account for the complication of life forms, but does evolution even try to claim that it is the harbinger of every facet of a life form (like complication)? Im writing a podcast on "why creation, evolution, and intelligent design isn't mutually exclusive." Any ideas would be highly appreciated! '

thx, Tom [e-mail]

Answer 1

Its quite interesting.

Creation and evolution are clearly not mutually exclusive.

Mutations, more often than not, are deleterious. meaning that in general, the organism will have reduced genetic fitness.

On a slightly different tack, the statistics relating to the origin of life and the key milestones in our evolutionary history, have to be extremely unlikely... eg. What are the chances of a cell membrane 'evolving', in such a way that wastes may be excreted, energy may be imbibed and protection of the organism facilitated? How did that first cell membrane get so complicated? Just one mutation or a multitude????

If people choose to think logically, they will see that creation, intelligent design and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

---
I've just read some of the other answers, which bear all the hallmarks of people who have simply studied evolution at high school or uni and believed it.

I got quite a good mark in my evolution unit at uni and the thing that I found most interesting was the way in which evolutionists posit that life originated. For those of you who have a clue, it is actually a form of 'spontaneous generation', which has quite a lot in common with creationism... in that it is often mocked for being completely illogical.

Evolution is founded on chance and chemistry allowing the first organisms to arise from the basic building blocks, while creation states that all life is created from a pre-existing intelligent creator -both are equally illogical and equally unlikely and equally based on FAITH. Whether you have faith in the scientific paradigm or the religious doctrines or some combination of these, it is always an assumption which you choose to believe for a personal reason.

Personally, to me, it is ancient history that will never be discovered in any plausible way.
___

I believe in both creation and evolution: I'm one of the few people that I know who actually was prepared to learn about evolution fairly thoroughly and it is patently obvious that species change over time and that natural selection has a role to play. What is not often recognised are the gaps in evolution's foundations: no idea about certain key milestones, they have to guess about where the first organism came from. This is an educated guess, which comes from looking at the chemistry of life, but still a guess.

Answer 2

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. Theistic evolution is under that umbrella as well.

Biblical creationism, on the other hand, is much more difficult to line up with Darwin, and requires some mental gymnastics.

Answer 3

Just a couple of thoughts.
Faith is accepting something as true with zero evidence.
All creatures alive are either random mutations or offspring of chance mutations that found a niche where they could live and procreate or which humans placed in that niche like the bulldog.
People asking you to accept something by faith are often trying to get you to put money in the offering plate so they only have to work one day a week.
Intelligent design is just an updated brainwashing technique. You still will be expected to put some money in the offering plate. Evolution is the only one of the 3 theories that you can believe in for free and that will accept all future evidence objectively. If a fossil of God was discovered like a footprint, it would fit right in to the scientific explanation with no problems.
Dig for the truth, don't let someone tell you to not worry about evidence.

Answer 4

All of those who are telling you the two are mutually exclusive are right.

Why don't you change your podcast topic and write about where god came from? That would be a much more interesting thing for you to research. And, when you come up with a good evidence and fact based case for this topic, come back here and tell us about your non-biblical facts and evidence.

Answer 5

There was a question similar to this not too long ago, also posted in this area (Biology). One answerer gave very distinct reasons and examples. If I remeber right, the question was call Darwin and Evolution? and was starred once. I recommend looking at it. I cannot give you definite answer, but you would also get very good answers if you post in the Religion and Spirituality section of Society and Culture.

P.S. Your's sounds like a great podcast on a great subject, because many religions do not deny evolution (including mine) and Evolution, especially Darwinism and Natural Selection does not describe how the life forms came to be there in the first place.

Answer 6

I'm afraid that they are mutually exclusive. Intelligent design contends that Go....an unspecified superintelligent entity created certain aspects of living beings in their current states, which could not be replicated by natural selection. Evolution explains that natural processes are sufficient to explain the development of life on Earth. I hardly need tell you where the overwhelming preponderance of scientific and intelligent lay opinion falls.

Answer 7

I believe you have realized that evolution is not something that can be denied, since theres so much proof (by someone who was going to be a priest!!). However for some reason which is beyond me, you kling on to your backwards pseudo science that is religion, and an imaginary figure which is god. Eventually you are going to have to decide one of two things. Either you realize that science with proof can no be denied and denounce the existance of this mythical creature called "God" as something which had such a strong hold on you not for its logical reasoning, but because you were indoctrined from birth. OR, you will deny all this proof before you and cling on to your mythical creature because you are scared of an uncertain afterlife, or the fact that you are not protected by miracles or magic and hang on to that feeling for the rest of your life, further slowing down the progress of your human race by allowing backward supperstition to guide your life.

But at the end, yes they are mutually exclusive

Answer 8

Actually, the two positions are dichotomous. One; evolutionary theory, is based on evidence,even though all the answers are not in.
The other, Intelligent design, is based on no evidence and only uses fallacious argument. " The argument from ignorance " and " the argument from personal incredulity. "
A position, intelligent design in this case, that claims to explain everything, explains nothing.

Answer 9

Creationism/intelligent design says that species (even complicated ones like humans) magically winked into existence. Evolutionism says they evolved from earlier ancestors, changing over thousands/millions/billions of years.

These are directly contradictory and cannot simultaneously be true.

Answer 10

I agree that these are mutually exclusive. Evolution is a matter of science; the others are matters of religion. One is based on evidence; the others are based on faith.