Most convincing points on either Darwin’s theory or intelligent design?

Question

Most convincing points on either Darwin’s theory or intelligent design?

Answer 1

I have the answer!

READ ICABOD !

Any more questions?

Answer 2

There are none it seems.

Answer 3

Evolution has been demonstrated through selective breeding, deep ocean core samples, fossils and the known history of life on the planet. That's just a few of the sources.There are literally tons of documentation on the topic.

Creationism is the true name for intelligent design. It requires a supernatural cause and every creature is formed that way right from the start.

The creation/evolution debate has some interesting points:

At the time of Darwin, Archbishop Usser compared the dates in the Bible to historical events. He then worked backward through the Bible to calculate when creation took place. The date he formulated was 4004 BC. Another person refined the date to October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM. One might ask why this isn't a national holiday?

There are several creation theories. Each attempts to explain the world and maintain the Christian Bible. In brief some of these theories are:

Young Earth: The planet was created in the recent past, say the last 10,000 years.

Old Earth: The planet is older but not billions of years old.

Gap Earth: The Biblical story of creation is followed but there are "gaps" of millions of years to explain the flow of creation and the age of the planet.

Young Earth: the planet and everything is 10,000 years old

Literal Earth: The planet was formed in 4004 BC. This is based on the literal reading of the bible. Which means the plane is flat, has a crystal dome above it and above that heaven.

When evolution is discussed, much of the creation science argument focus is on the fact that it is a "theory or idea."  The creationism argument then suggests that each idea is as good as any other so a "fair" hearing would give people the chance to decide on their own. (Kippling once reported a village that voted that the earth was flat.) If this suggests a political election, you need to remember that all the world's religions and people have creation narratives. Therefore all would need a "fair" hearing. Finally, this isn't a case of "If I tear your down, then my side wins."

Much of the 'research" in creationism is directed at finding flaws in evolutionary theory. Again it's a case of "If I tear your down, then my side wins." One common example used by creationists is the mousetrap. It has only a few parts and if you remove one, it doesn't trap mice. Creationist point to the eye as a similar case. Take one part away and it doesn't work. During the Delaware school trail, one scientist worn a broken mouse trap as a tie clasp. This demonstrated that even with a part removed the mousetrap worked.

The best site to learn about evolution is:

National Academy of Sciences: (Guidebook on Evolution)

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

To quote from this source:



"Evolution in the broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and earth have changed through time, and so has life on earth.

Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Darwin called this process "descent with modification," and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

"Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

A common comment is that man "descended from the apes." Consider:

"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we shared a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with the African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes—orangutans and gibbons—and even less similar to monkeys, because we shared common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia."

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evo...

Answer 4

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.

Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most famous for using the design argument.  In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology.  He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer.  He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

Now, is this a valid argument?  Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.  Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription, a newspaper article, or a computer program, we know there was an intelligent agent behind that information.

And the thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role.  In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.”

The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecaseford...

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...

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.)”

Answer 5

Intelligent Design: "god did it!"

Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Edit:

On Digg, I just came along a link to the book "Science, Evolution, and Creationism". It's a 88 page book, released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Institute of Medicine. It's available online for free at:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id...

"In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes."

Answer 6

There aren't any convincing points for intelligent design.  That's why it's not considered science and why it's not taught in science class.