Intelligent design or evolution?

Question

What is the reason behind your beliefs and why?

Answer 1

Evolution.  There is no objective evidence for Intelligent Design.  ID is nothing but argument from ignorance.

Answer 2

Evolution, as that is what is best supported by the evidence.

Answer 3

I don't "believe in" evolution. Science is to be understood and accepted (or challenged), not "believed in". Do you "believe in" gravity?

● Evolution is very much a fact.

● The theory of evolution is a theory - just like atomic theory and gravity theory. The word "theory" has a very specific meaning in a scientific context: THE THEORY EXPLAINS THE FACTS. See http://www.notjustatheory.com/

● Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant fields accept evolution.

● There are no alternative scientific theories.

● There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...

● And zero evidence against it.

● The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.

● The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.

● The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the united states.

● There are two types of creationists: professionals who make money from books, lectures and such, and knowingly make false claims - and followers who accept those claims without understanding them.

● Examples of ridiculous creationist anti-science: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?us...

● Examples of creationist quote mining (like quoting part of a scientists' sentence to make it sound like he's saying something completely different): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...

● Scientific American's 15 answers to creationist nonsense: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-a...

● The evolutionary tree: http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol...

● Hominid species: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/spe...

● Transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC...

● A comprehensive list of evolution resources: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopi...

Answer 4

Evolution.

"Intelligent Design" is not science.  It does not suggest theories and make testable predictions based on those theories, then test the predictions in reproducible, objective ways.  It does not then modify the theory when the predications are falsified.  ID starts with a belief, gathers up any anecdote or scrap of data that looks like it supports ID, and ignores all data that contradicts the belief.  That's religion, not science.

On the other hand, there's a LOT of science showing that evolution happens.

Answer 5

The problem that I have with such "claims" as intelligent design, ID, is that it suggests a designer.  Now, what is it about the story of ID that says there has to be just one single designer?  Why couldn't there be many different designers all working on different aspects of the over all design?

ID is not science and has no place in the classroom, in my opinion.

Answer 6

Intelligent design has been completely proven wrong. Evolution has scientific evidence to stand by it.

Answer 7

Well intelligent design is my belief system, evolution is my evidence of it.  This is not one thing or the other as they are not talking about the same thing.

1.  Evolution is about the origin of SPECIES, not the Origins of LIFE.

2.  Evolution has been observed, tested, and for all intents and purposes PROVED as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet.

3.  Intelligent design has not been disproved

4.  Intelligent design is a belief in a divine purpose of evolution.

5.  The belief in intelligent design is as unprovable as belief that hand of God is responsible for  the interaction of subatomic particles and quantum forces.

6.  Lots of details on the diversity of life (and the interaction of sub-atomic particles) are startling amazing in their unlikeliness.  This supports, but does not prove anything for those that believe in intelligent design.  Explanations that it all occurred randomly and naturally do not disprove intelligent design.

And finally, there is no need to disprove intelligent design.  It only needs to be properly labeled as philosophy, not science.

Answer 8

God caused what is know as a "random" mutation on D.N.A. Therefore, evolution exists, because God has made the mutation, or evolution happen.

Answer 9

Intelligent design:

1. The missing link

Evolution is a fact and it has been proven. In every species there is gradual change which can be seen in fossils. But there is a transitional fossil between apes and man.

2. 223 Adams Alien Gene

In the process of evolution, our DNA structure is altered by the number of genes and structure. So in the theory of evolution, every succeeding should have subset of genes common with a it ancestors. But is human we have 223 genes that is not present in any living thing (animals or plant) on Earth.

Answer 10

Argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer." Intelligent design was formulated in the 1990s, primarily in the United States, as an explicit refutation of the Darwinian theory of biological evolution. Building on a version of the argument from design for the existence of God, proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are "irreducibly complex" in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains; therefore, living organisms must have been created all at once by an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design generally avoided identifying the designer with the God of Christianity or other monotheistic religions, in part because they wished the doctrine to be taught as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution in public schools in the United States, where the government is constitutionally prohibited from promoting religion. Critics of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms, and that it is ultimately untestable and therefore not scientific.

--------------------------------------...

ACCORDING TO an another explanation...

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God.

Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

The National Science Teachers Association, an organization of American science teachers and the largest organization of science teachers in the world, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.

Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

VERY IMPORTANT.......

"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state.

Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By 1995, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.

With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.

--------------------------------------...

CAN YOU LINK TO THESE sites given beneath and consult a little with their details?

1.Intelligent Design - Wikipedia

... design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence" ... false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent...

2. Design by Evolution

Design by Evolution - Evolution is Nature's design process. ... Home / Computer Science / Artificial Intelligence. Design by Evolution ...

http://www.springer.com/computer/artific...

3. Evolution: intelligence, design, neo-Darwinian randomness: just ...

Evolution: intelligence, design, neo-darwinin randomness: just teach the facts ... likelihood of this happening by chance or by design and we will move a long way ...

http://simpletoremember.com/vitals/evolu...

--------------------------------------...

You Tube... is fantastic...... HERE IS something interesting for you!!!!

YouTube - Polyworld: Using Evolution to Design Artificial Intelligence

JUST CLICK & ENJOY with sound and vision

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m97_kL4o...

--------------------------------------...

Fantastic video, isn't it? I use to show it to my students in my classroom.

Did you enjoy.....  I wish you gave me kindly a feedback....if possible.

Answer 11

intelligent design: I am a 6th grade math and science teacher so i have a fairly good bio. base knowledge.  The reason that evolution is so far-fetched is that it really seems impossible.  Did you know that Charles Darwin himself was actually quoted as saying that he had issues with his own theory.  I am not 100% sure what he said it in regards to, but I belive it was the complexity of the human eye.  The reason that I tell people that I believe in Intelligent Design is that DNA needs protein to synthasize and protein needs DNA to replicate.  If DNA and Proteins were not evolved at the exact same second they would never have been able to evolve, as they are completly dependent on eachother. I hope this was helpful to you.

Answer 12

I think the question is moot.  The ID'ers want to make a distinction between evolution and their beliefs for reasons that escape me.

However, I think that evolution is ID taken to its logical conclusion.  God, in his omnipotence, designed a universe and physical laws and reality that automatically evolves people.  This is the ultimate in intelligent design.  

As people eventually learn more and are able to explain the evolutionary processes that we currently have difficulty explaining, ID'ers will have to reposition ID into more and more basic processes,eventually arriving  at the conclusion that God must have designed the entire universe and every single atom in such a way that they automatically build more and more complex molecules, and that these molecules build themselves into the simplest organisms, etc., etc.  The end result is the evolution of man from the most primal atoms, with the very structure of physics and chemistry as the ultimate blueprint specified by God.

Answer 13

There is not a shred of physical evidence for an intelligent designer.  

By the way, what kind of a stupid designer made the bad genes for: sickle cell disease, phenylketonuria, maple syrup urine disease, Tay-Sachs disease, and all of the other genetic diseases?  If there is an intelligent designer, there must also be an stupid designer who is responsible for genetic diseases.  Or does the intelligent designer have stupid moments?

However, if we just forget about intelligent designers, the issue of stupid design becomes a totally moot point.

Answer 14

Evolution. Many of the processes creationists claim that cannot occur without creation can actually do.

May of the processes that creationists claim to have occurred under the guidance of God actually occurred naturally without the intervention of anything.

There is just NO intelligent design.

Answer 15

since either is essentially impossible to prove , it hardly matters .

Its possible that Florantina the tooth fairy created the world yesterday at 4:15 , just after tea .

Answer 16

Evolution, because it's the only one that has factual evidence.

Intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific theory; there is a global consensus on evolution except for the radicals. There is no debate - there are loud dissenters, but there is not any real debate in the world.

Things change over time through processes (such as natural selection) and the end result is evolution. Whether there is a God or not is a completely separate idea that does not effect the truth of Evolution - which only dictates what has happened, not what caused it to happen at the beginning of the Universe.

The Albert Einstein quote above me only illustrates how wonderful and complex nature is - attributing that brilliance and fragility to outside cause does not respect the miracle that is natural law. Albert Einstein, after all, was not very religions (and recent papers have shown that he might have been an athiest, or at least fiercely against organized religion.)

Answer 17

I only believe that pantyhose is the necessity for me...

Answer 18

I assume you are speaking of atheistic evolution since you contrast it with ID.  Theistic evolution falls under the umbrella of 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 (directed panspermia).

And I have to agree with Dawkins.  In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dr. Richard Dawkins said, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Now, let me answer your question.  The universe is here (cosmological argument), design is here (teleological argument), beauty is here (aesthetical argument), morality is here (moral argument), the desire for God is here (universal belief argument), etc.—what is their adequate preceding cause? Many people believe this points to God.

The problem is, no bit of evidence—no scientific discovery—is going to make the atheists change their minds.  There are plenty of unanswered questions in secular science that require divine intervention (e.g., the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of genetic information, the origin of language and morality), but atheists hold on to their faith that science will eventually provide them with a way around the God conclusion.

As Wayne Jackson has said, “It is not reasonable to assume that chaos gave rise to order, that the nonrational produced the rational, that nonliving evolved into the living, that nonconscious became conscious, that amoral developed morality, etc. The simple fact is, people do not accept evolution because it is the logical thing to do; rather, many believe it because they have a vested interest in not wanting to acknowledge the Creator!”

From what I’ve seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.  Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part.  But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Here are some of Darwin’s failed predictions: http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-printable....

Most of the time, people just give examples of natural selection and assume it points to molecules-to-man evolution.  Even YECs believe in natural selection and "speciation." Take a look at these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...