FRESH THOUGHTS: Intelligent Design vs Darwinism. Argue your position and why?

Question

Best answer will be based on this criterion. (this is not a hw question)

-Well detailed argued thought. No trite "witty" answers

--Comparison of the movie and book. Pros and cons of each

-*** answer that offers new insight into the debate than what is typically the norm****

-You may quote texts and movies but please no statistics.

Best answer is based on quality of the answer. Not personal belief. My motivation for putting up this question is to try and gain new insight on the matter than what is typically put forth. Im looking for fresh stuff. Ive read the god delusion and other stuff, and watched expelled and many live debates. Im using yahoo answers as the medium to perceive the debate on the internet also in an intelligble manner. I dont need your thought on my motivation- i understand this could end up horribly or go somewhat welll. Im looking for something new.

Good Luck.

Answer 1

so, in other words, you want me to do a portion of your homework for you and your giving me orders to boot?

Answer 2

Here's a problem with the debate that is overlooked:  ID is a philosophical theory; Darwinism (at least in its contemporary biological form) is a scientific theory with weakened philosophical roots.  Clearly ID addresses the 'deep' questions while Darwinism provides the adequate explanation of empirical facts.  To compare them properly, we need a 'deep' philosophical theory of evolution.  There are many of them out there, but none have really met much popular success.  These sorts of theories generally have an advantage over ID type theories in that they have the resources to explain changes; this is what evolution is all about...how one state of being evolves (by certain rules laid down by the theory) into other states of being.  ID theories by contrast are weak on this front; a designer made everything as it is today...and thats it.  Sure things have changed a bit (they must have), but ID gives no account of what these changes amount to and how they occur.  Darwinism can make sense of these changes.

Answer 3

You're asking the impossible. ID is not science, it is belief based and seeks to confirm an already arrived-at conclusion.

Scientists can't hope to engage in dialogue with people adopting that approach.

edit - Michael Behe was demolished in the Dover school trial. His "science" is discredited, only the ID faithful refuse to accept his defeat.

Answer 4

It's quite simple: evolution is a scientific theory that is very strongly supported by all available evidence. ID is a typical religious "gap theory" - if there's any scientific uncertainty, simply insert "Well then, God must have done it."

One is a supportable argument, the other is not.

Answer 5

I read "Darwins Black Box" by Michael Behe, a catholic molecular biologist who claims that biological complexity is proof of ID. I have read Dawkins et al on evolution. They claim biological complexity could only have arisen through evolutionary processes. Since no intelligent writer can agree on the origin of matter or life,there is little chance you'll find a clue here.

Answer 6

There's nothing new possible, I regret to inform you. ID is unequivocally not scientific, not science,and not at all competent to compete with science. The idea that it does is a sham, and I'm not overstating that; it intrigues sloppy thinkers, and the rest of us snort and ignore it. It can't answer the questions that Darwinism answers, and Darwinism can't answer the questions ID answers (or would, if it weren't so bent on trying to answer the wrong questions).

If you're looking to take the underdog side in a creation vs. science debate, I refer you to the big bang. The science there is woefully weak - almost as weak as ID, by scientific standards.

Answer 7

What exactly is the question? Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism in what regards? There are at least two different possible debates here and it is best to distinguish them first.

1. You could be talking about whether ID or Darwinism is "true" (or more modestly, which we should think is true.) In regards to Darwinism, this would be a question better answered in the biology section. Darwinism roughly says that certain traits are passed on through genes (which is undisputedly true), that these traits can affect "fitness," roughly speaking, the ability to pass along one's genes to successful future generations (this is also undisputedly true), and that, given enough time, the accruing genetic differences (since populations in different environments will be "selected" for different traits) can be enough to turn at least one population into a different species. It is really only the last claim of Darwinism, that different species can arise from the process of natural selection, that anti-darwinists deny, calling it "macro-evolution." There is overwhelming evidence for "macroevolution," most notably that there have been instances of it observed. But this is primarily an empirical question that biology would be better suited to answer than philosophy would.

In regards to whether we should believe ID is true, this is a much more open and shut case. There are not a whole lot of problems in philosophy that a nearly certain answer can be arrived at, but the philosopher David Hume's argument against intelligent design is one notable exception. You can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#... His argument is widely regarded by philosophers as defeating ID. It is kind of funny that an 18th century philosopher solved something that the modern media continue to portray as an unresolved debate.

2. The other possible argument that could be meant by "ID vs. Darwinism" is over what is science (and by extension, what should be taught in science classes.) This is actually a much more difficult debate to resolve than the debte over whether we should believe ID is true. Philosophers of science continue to argue over what demarcates "science." Some criterias of what science is may exclude biology, or include astrology. This debate really is outside my area of knowledge, but I do know that it is not a debate which has been solved. So, weirdly, you can get some philosophers who argue both that ID is obviously wrong and that it is science. The most widely accepted demarcation of science that scientists themselves hold, however, is Karl Popper's criteria that a theory must make potentially falsifiable empirical predictions in order to be "scientific." Since ID does not make empirical predictions - it only posits an unempirical and untestable hypothesis (that some intelligent designer created the universe) - on a Popperian view, it is not science.

Nothing I wrote here is original. Hume's works are several centuries old. But if you have only been paying attention to mainstream debates, it may offer some new insights. Philosophy of science is not something the media usually cares to go in to depth about, even though it is really what a good part of the ID debate is about.

Answer 8

Suppose you were a chemist trying to determine why an unexpected chemical reaction occurred. You go into the lab vowing not to leave until you have solved the problem. Ten minutes later you come out of the lab: "I've figured out the solution. God (or an intelligent designer) caused it to happen." Would this even be a slightly credible answer to the situation?