Intelligent Design....?

Intelligent Design says that somethings are best explained as the result of an intelligent cause (which could or could not be what people term God) instead of the result of natural selection. Like someone discovering an ancient civilization and looking at the building structures and saying that they were intelligently designed rather than simply natural formations.

If no fossils are ever found linking different species then an intelligent cause would have to be the inevitible conclusion or a very great possibility. Otherwise you would have to conclude that some how 100 million DNA bases just changed in a few mutations....

The actual supporters of ID don't support Intelligent Design being taught in schools because it would become political and hinder a fair and open discussion of if its really true or not, appearing only to be a religious idea...

So whats wrong with Intelligent Design in biology? What makes it false?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have to define what is Inelligence first?

Is DeepBlue intelligent?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intelligence as in order like the Egyptian pyramids are intelligently designed as opposed to a natural formation (like a mountain)....if you said the pyramids were a natural formation then you would have to be a fool since stastically its nearly impossible...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like that analogy of the Great Pyramid, and it would also have to be happenstance that the GP's base perimeter length just happens to be half a nautical mile, which could be likened to the "coincidence" that Earth's environment "just happens" to be perfect for a wide variety of lifeforms.

 

OK, now try trace the history of Pyramid formation....it started from something little complex....

 

Why did the "little complex" stones form into a pyramid?

 

Because that formation is naturally favoured to be more stable?

 

Howdy VitalOne,

Let's call a spade a spade.

"Intelligent Design" is simply another word for "Creationism". Nothing more, nothing less. Both use the false argument "X is too complex to have come about by natural causes (that I know of), therefore it was magically created". The difference between ID and regular creationism is that ID tries to hide the name of the Grand Old Designer (GOD).

More specifically, ID concentrates two debunked ideas, Irreducible Complexity (ala Michael Behe), and Specified Complexity (ala William Dembski). We can go into more detail regarding these two items if you'd like.

You will note that science up to this point hasn't needed a theory of intelligent design to determine that buildings and other artifacts were intelligently designed. This is because the default method of determining what is "natural" and what is "designed" is by comparison to known natural and designed things. This method, while not perfect, works pretty well.

Unfortunately for ID followers, life and biology has long been classified by science as "natural" so there really isn't any controversy regarding "design" in actual scientific circles. The controversy is only found in political, religious, and sociological circles; invariably created by those who just can't accept the findings of science.

Really? Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection by studying the forms of living animals, not fossils. He didn't even know about genetics! Today we can determine genetic relatedness of living things by comparison of DNA (much like a paternity test) without a single fossil required. Fossils are simply one line of evidence, genetics and morphology are two others. Unfortunately for the anti-evolution crowd, all three of these lines of evidence point to the same conclusion: the evolution by natural processes of life on Earth.

Regarding the dichotomy you give above, I don't think that lack of understanding of physical processes really leads to the logical conclusion of a mysterious designer. Your mileage may vary.

That is blatantly false. The Discovery Institute is a main player in ID, and they want it taught in schools. If there really is anything to ID, then it will eventually be taught in schools, because it will have proved itself a science. What proponents of ID have given us so far, however, are sciencey-sounding names, bad reasoning, and lots of hand waving. No science so far...

See the above paragraph. If you are still interested, we can delve into specifics such as Irreducible Complexity.

 

The concept of God seems way more complex than anything on earth. So...nevermind.

 

Are you serious? If you are, then this is a relief.

There's absolutely no evidence for Intelligent Design. It's not even a real theory of life. It's creationism masquerading as science. Evolution, on the other hand, has actually been observed, both directly and indirectly, through quite a few methods. It and the theory of natural selection have plenty of evidence in their favor. Overwhelming. Furthermore, no evidence has been turned up that either shows evolution doesn't happen or shows that natural selection doesn't drive evolution. No other scientific facts or models contradict it.

In simple terms: The law of evolution makes Intelligent Design (read: creationism) false.

 

What people forget is that a billion years is a very very long time.

 

The analogy doesn't work since we know the origins of the pyraminds, humans.

 

"Law of (Darwinian) Evolution." Ha!!!!!

 

If an intelligent designer were responsible for all life on earth, that designer would most likely use the process of evolution through genetics. Its the most straightforward way of doing it other than making things appear out of nowhere (which is impossible).

 

The "only" problem with that is that is not described in the Bible.

 

I think you need to be a bit more specific about what kind of evolution has been observed. Micro-evolution is apparent and no one denies that - it's the macro-evolution that needs a bit more proof. Evolutionists tout everything from the beak-size changes in the Galapagos finches to the resistance of insects to pesticides as solid evidence for macro-evolution, when the changes that occurred in these species were the result of a characteristic already there in a smaller portion of the species, not as the result of an observed mutation. In fact, no beneficial mutation has ever actually been observed.

 

FallingSkyward, you should call them Darwinian Evolutionists, who like to say that creationists don't believe in evolution, which, however, creationists do believe in per se, which is natural selection within syngameons, or as you say, micro-evolution.

 

This has nothing to do with religion, its just a fair quesiton, although it does have some religious and philosophical implications, if you search everywhere for missing links between two species but find absolutely nothing then how did it evolve? Did 300 million DNA bases just magically change in one mutuation? An intelligent cause would be an inevitable conclusion, that or a major revision in modern evolution would be neccessary...

Actually lots of archeologists are called when people believe they've found a new ancient civilization or whatever. They check to see if it really is an artificial, intelligent creation, like seeing right angles and things like that buildings.

Again something classified as natural is natural if the evidence shows it to be......not if it simply fits into what evolutinists want to believe...

But fossils are neccessary for species that we simply don't have genetic samples for, like Dinosaurs. Evolutionists even tried to hoax a missing link between chimpanzees and humans...how pathetic...

Evolutionists simply dodge the question, something natural is something natural when the evidence shows it to be such, if you search everywhere for missing links between two species who's DNA is pretty similar but find absolutely nothing, what is the conclusion then? If you look everywhere on Earth and there's absolutely nothing linking the species (but there should be as per evolution) then what is the conclusion? Again forget about religion and theism and atheism for a second...what would be the logical conclusion?

Actually, all sources confirm that Discovery Institute discourages the teaching of intelligent design in schools...

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/235729_idesign09.html

"Discovery Institute, the main research organization supporting ID scholars, opposes efforts to mandate intelligent design. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community."

 

Yes, check my sources in the previous post...religion has nothing to do with this...

But intelligent design does a scientific basis...the basis is that somethings are best explained by an intelligent cause (which could even be aliens genetically engineering a species or ANYTHING intelligent) instead of the purely undirected process of natural selection.

For instance if I show you one species and another species which have pretty similar DNA, you would say that they must have evolved from each other and you would be able to point out the species in between which they evolved from. However if you are never ever able to find anything linking the species together then what is the conclusion? Maybe the fossils just magically disappeared from Earth? Or maybe magically 100 million genetic bases changed in one or two mutations? Anything to avoid an intelligent cause right?