Is Intelligent Design really at odds with Evolution? Or just with Natural Selection? Should we consider ID?

Question

From what I know of ID it doesn't deny evolution - it just denies that evolution is the result of chance, which is Darwin's unique point - few people deny evolution - Darwin stands out only in his insistence that evolution is by natural selection and in turn by chance - it was just chance that some bears that were trapped in the arctic gave birth to white bears, which in turn survived and mated with other white bears. But usually there is a recessive gene in there for white fur - how do we know God didn't put the recessive gene there because there'd be an ice age? Bergson's Creative Evolution is at odds with both ID and Darwin's theory. Nobody wants to ban Bergson (nor should we).

Answer 1

You're right.

Actually, I never thought ID was at odds with evolution, but it may be at odds with Darwinism.

Evolution has been shown to happen inside of species, but one species evolving into another is still unproven.  That's Darwinism, which states that all species evolved from non-living matter into living cells which were the basis of all life.

Of course very few believe in Darwin's Origin of Species.  Even Darwin didn't believe it could ever be proven and it's been 150 years with no proof, so he was right in that regard.

Answer 2

Intelligent design doesn't have any scientific value at all.  All of the premises have been totally refuted.  Your example that states that evolution is about chance, which implies randomness, is not at all what Darwin said if I understand the point.  He said that selection drives evolution.  The only role of randomness is to allow more selection.  

Answer 3

ID is simply repackaged creationism. In the Dover court case the judgment was intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

The judgment further stated: "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64) "

It was discovered that an ID textbook and simply been updated with ID replacing terms creationist terms.

Much of ID argument is predicated that "both sides should be presented" then let people decide. First this assumes the two are somehow equal when the evidence shows otherwise.Second it assumes scientific law and facts can be voted on. I'd love to repeal the "law of gravity" or reduce the "speed of light" but it won't happen. Third is that the issue isn't resolved with the negative campaign where tearing at one side "somehow' seems to make you side "right." That's why the judgment in the Dover case had " (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64) "

ID is based on two assumptions. That life is too complex to arise by chance and that some supernatural "designer" is required. Occam's law states you solve a problem with the fewest number of assumptions. Adding it's too "complex" and a magical "designer" does just that. The overwhelming facts disprove ID. In term ID fails to show how chance can't account for life and says nothing about the identify, origin and current location of a magical "designer."

Answer 4

What we should consider is acquiring the basic critical reasoning skills and knowledge of science to be able to assess all these theories!