Evolution theory vs Intelligent Design theory?

Question

arguments favoring or disproving each side

Answer 1

Evolution: arguments for = fossil record, genetic history, directly observed experiments in speciation, and confirmed by every other field of science.  Arguments against = old book says god did it.

Intelligent design (aka creationism) : arguments for = old book says god did it.  Arguments against = reality.

http://www.talkorigins.org

EDIT:  The bacterial flagellum evolved out of parts that were used for a different purpose before serving their current purpose.  The big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago; our planet is only 4.5 billion years old.  I don't know why people try to equate them.

Answer 2

I am on both sides of this issue. I believe that God created us through evolution. A lot of my views can be expressed through the book The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins. I was raised a Christian but as I scientist I find it almost impossible to lay to rest the theory of Evolution.

Answer 3

they probally worked together.

Answer 4

Eri has most of the positives for evolution, but some of the intelligent design arguments are the whip-tail that would not have just evolved to come together as a working piece. Alone, the parts of it would be non-functioning and not be an evolutionary advantage to keep. Another is that there was no ozone during "pond-scum" period  after big bang so only thermophiles could ever raise up.

Personally I don't see why people can't accept evolution and intelligent design theories to work together.

Answer 5

Intelligent design is not a theory.  A theory is not a guess, a hypothesis is a guess.  To be a theory, a hypothesis needs real, solid evidence supporting it (including NO evidence suggesting a major fundamental flaw) and it needs to be testable.  A theory does not mean 'we're still trying to figure out if it's true or not, we'll get back to you.'  A theory is top of the line, theories don't get promoted, they're already 'on top.'  Intelligent design is not a theory as it A: lacks any evidence to support it and B: is not testable/falsifiable.

There are tons and tons of evidence supporting common decent through evolution.  You can see some of it here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In addition, evolution as a process (the natural generation of a novel, beneficial trait through a mutation selected by the environment) has actually been observed in a lab and thus proven as a fact - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

In addition, simple cells have been created in a lab from nonliving material.  Although this process (abiogenesis) is not actually part of evolution, it's one of the reasons that intelligent design supporters who are ignorant about evolution claim as a reason they don't accept evolution.  They don't think it's possible, but here it is - http://www.physorg.com/news130090764.htm...

The only reason anyone believes in intelligent design is because of their religion, and that they don't understand evolution.  Like the person above who said the 'whip-tail would not have just evolved', that's just an argument from ignorance from that person.  All they're saying is they don't personally understand how it could happen so they think it's not possible.