Intelligent Design or Evolution?
Sunrise or Sunset?
The Origin of Life
Even in the highly technological world that we live in today there are still a multitude of specific science questions that are unanswered. Such as the beginning of life. Researchers have science experiments and scientific data that they accumulate and attempt to prove the accuracy of their theories. Successful experiments are repeatable and render the same results each time. Any time you can conduct an experiment repeatedly and it renders the same results, then this becomes scientific fact.
However, many in the scientific fields would like us to believe that non-conclusive experiments or theories are scientific fact as well. For example, they conduct experiments or examine data, and then they theorize that because certain data is arranged a particular way or structured in a similar pattern that they can assume futuristic or historical conclusions based on those results.
The theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design both have many questions that can not be proven using a method with reproducible results. For example... Which came first the chicken or the egg? This may seem like a rhetorical philosophical question but the two theories have different answers.
Given the opportunity both sides will try to persuade you to their line of thinking based on conclusions drawn from unprovable events. Ultimately, in the end, an individual will chose which argument to believe based on the volume of evidence they have witnessed or experienced in favor of one side or the other.
In either case whether it be the evolution theory or intelligent design, when compared to the means by which science determines something to be fact, both require faith or belief in something that is yet unproven.
Any theory that cannot be reproduced in the laboratory with the same results by multiple scientists repeatedly is unproven.
Glossary
theory
"...a broad explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. They usually integrate many individual hypotheses. A scientific theory must be testable with evidence from the natural world. If a theory can't be tested with experimental results, observation, or some other means, then it is not a scientific theory."
Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary.php?start=s&end=z
hypothesis
"...a proposed explanation for a narrow set of phenomena. A hypothesis must be testable with evidence from the natural world. If an explanation can't be tested with experimental results, observation, or some other means, then it is not a scientific hypothesis."
Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary.php?start=g&end=m
See also: scientific theory (Sorce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_%28science%29)
intelligent design
"Intelligent design is the proposition 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."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
evolution
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification."
"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."
Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
Theory of Evolution
Many people understand evolution as the gradual change of a living organism from one form of life to another. This understanding of evolution is not quite complete. It leaves out a very important aspect of evolution that is referred to as “descent with modification”. Essentially, “descent with modification” says that all life forms have a genetic structure that is similar in at least one branch. The theory of evolution then concludes that because there is similar genetic structure in all life forms that they are descendants from a life form that lived before them. Similar structure does not scientifically “prove” that all living creatures “evolved” from the same source, it only “proves” that they have similar structure. Hypothetical theories based on assumed conclusions does not make for scientific fact. If it cannot be repeated in the laboratory by multiple scientists and achieve the same results then it is nothing more than just a theory. It is not scientific fact.
Scientists have yet to reproduce in the laboratory any experiments that prove the theory of evolution or natural selection, and therefore they must be taken on faith based on evidence that leads them to draw a particular conclusion. In a U.S. court of law it would be called circumstantial evidence and may be insufficient to convict a criminal of breaking the law.
Creationism vs Intelligent Design
Next, let me clarify that creationism is not the same as the theory of intelligent design. Many of the opponents to intelligent design want to discount the scientific evidence used in this theory because they believe it is intricately connected to religion, and more specifically to the God of the Christian Bible.
In the Christian religion, they chose to believe the origin of life came from a creator. Their creator is described as a supernatural being they commonly refer to as God. They also use Biblical and historical documentation of evidence as the means by which to convince people of their theory of creationism. History, in and of itself must be taken on faith unless of course you were personally on hand and witnessed it for yourself. Much of the Christian religion is based on faith in historical documentation and therefore it is difficult to reproduce in the laboratory with 100% accuracy. A lot of people use their own personal testimony of how God has worked in their lives as evidence of Gods existence. Statistically if you add up the number of similar testimonies that express a common belief you can collect enough evidence to support a theory in a particular religious concept. Can this theory be proven in the laboratory with 100% accuracy? Probably not. However it will have enough evidence to support the theory of the concept, as being perceived as truth.
FAQ's
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154
Does Intelligent Design Explain Life's Origin and Evolution?
“Intelligent design differs from science in that the theory is based on a different set of assumptions called axioms.”
Source: http://theory-of-evolution.net/
Does the Origin and Evolution of Life Suggest Design?
"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin
Over a century later, science has yet to show that complex organs can be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and many scientists do not think that this is important.
Theory of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design uses the concept of complex specified information, or CSI as theoretical proof that living creatures did not just happen by chance. With CSI the theory of intelligent design concludes that because of high levels of complex design in certain biological structures it is not possible that they could have happened through evolution. With evolution it is necessary for each biological component to be operational throughout the evolutionary stages. When certain complex biological structures are “reverse engineered” it has been determined that they would not function properly if any single element of their design was missing. No supernatural being can necessarily be credited with the design, just that it was created as a whole unit and did not evolve over time. Complex specified information is crucial in the theory of intelligent design.
Fact or Faith?
Unless the actual creator as referenced in the theory of intelligent design appears in the laboratory and demonstrates some creative abilities, we could logically conclude that the chicken was created first, which in turn began laying eggs to produce more chickens. My example here is not to infer that a chicken is made up of complex specified information but rather if there is a creator it logically makes sense that the chicken would be created first.
Using the theory of evolution on the other hand, those who subscribe to this line of thinking are not able to produce a chicken egg without a chicken by means of a big bang or display an evolutionary chain that is traceable that will prove this theory. They can show you evidence that leads them to certain conclusions but they can't actually demonstrate it or complete the evolutionary chain with any type of precision.
Therefore, we are in a bit of a quandary. Neither side has real proof of which came first the chicken or the egg. As a result of inconclusive scientific evidence each of us will have to draw our own conclusions. Those conclusions will be based on evidence that we have received from either research or general life experiences. Faith or belief in those conclusions will ultimately be the deciding factor in what we determine to be the truth.
More by this Author
- 7
- 6
Let's just say for the sake of discussion, you decide to investigate the feasibility of installing your own home energy power source. There are many different factors to consider regarding making your own...
- 33
Do you trust people you don't know? I would venture to say absolutely yes without a shadow of doubt. We do it all the time. How well do you trust strangers, acquaintances, friends, or your family? Who the person...
Comments 21 comments
that was very great and mind blowing. Keep it up dear hubber
chukseasy,
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your comments.
Ron
That's ridiculous. Intelligent design has been declared as religion in the Dover, Pennsylvania case, and their textbook "Of Pandas and People" was proven to be a recycled creationist textbook. There was even an early draft where they tried to rework every mention of "creationists" into "design proponents", but they were not too bright and they even left in a "transitional form" which read "cdesignproponentists". The judge in the case, when that was pointed out, got fed up and declared that Intelligent Design was purely religion, and could not be taught in a science class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSaINzdgBLA
Creationists wanted to say that the judge was "biased" or something. But what REALLY happened was definite proof that creationists were trying to rename themselves as "design proponents", but creationism was already banned from science classes. Intelligent design was found in court to be creationism repackaged, and therefore inherently religious in nature.
While I appreciate your comments and acknowledge your perspective, I must adamantly disagree. I know exactly how you feel. I felt the same way when I saw things the way you do. However, after doing further research, this is what a I found out.
Intelligent design does in fact promote a designer, however, from a scientific standpoint, it makes no reference to a “supernatural creator.” The people who oppose intelligent design as a scientific study are the ones who make reference to creationism in an effort to discount the value of the scientific authenticity of intelligent design.
The study of intelligent design follows all the basic premises of science.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p...
Those who oppose intelligent design the loudest have the most to lose if it is recognized in the scientific community as being legitimate. Therefore, they view it from a biased perspective that blinds them from the reality of its scientific observations, hypothesis, evidence, and conclusions.
Intelligent design is based upon scientific method and has nothing to do with “creationism” that is taught by religion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/featur...
If you take the time to do the research, you will discover that what many who support evolution claim to be as scientific fact is nothing more than an assumption based on subjective evidence that leads them to draw certain conclusions. Scientific fact is determined by experiments that are repeatable and achieve the same results. A theory is not a scientific fact.
There is no "intelligent design" independent of religion. The fact they tried to re-tread a textbook to say Intelligent Design rather than Creationism, and were caught out by a government subpoena doing so, proves that.
Furthermore, what does Intelligent Design say about our retinas? The nerves from the sensing-cells don't safely go out the back of the eye, but in fact go UP into the path of oncoming light, forming a film of nerves over our vision. We don't see as well as we could. Could this be proof of Unintelligent Design?
What new facts does Intelligent Design bring to light? It hardly seems to be a very fruitful area of endeavor, given that these are the ONLY Intelligent Design papers published in all of the scientific literature:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
and yet those papers had...problems.
“As of December 2005, intelligent design supporters offer, in support of this claim, the following articles...”
In case you haven't noticed this is 2011. To quote an article regarding a lack of information that was written 6 years ago seems a little inadequate to me.
Did you even take any time to read some of the reference material I have provided?
“There is no "intelligent design" independent of religion.”
That is exactly the viewpoint of most of the scientific journals that have refused to publish, thereby creating a lack of peer review, any articles and scientific documentation of intelligent design. In their prejudice towards religion they immediately associate a designer as a supernatural creator, which cannot be explained with their scientific experiments, which means according to them He cannot possibly exist.
The idea that you are not satisfied with the design of the human eye is definitely not an indicator of Unintelligent design. A motorcycle has faster acceleration than and automobile, Does that make the automobile defective? No! It was just designed for a different purpose for the intended user. Although they are different, there design is still according to how it was planned.
Intelligent design brings several things to light:
Irreducible complexity states that because of the complex design of certain organisms it would be impossible for them to form according to the theory of evolution and natural selection.
The design characteristics of DNA molecules is so complex that according to the theory of evolution it would be like taking a handful of letters that make up the English alphabet and throwing them on a table enough times that eventually they would be in the correct order. On top of that, without someone first establishing the order in which they should be arranged, DNA would never know how to assemble itself to be in the correct order to begin with.
In other words, the chances of it happening are not possible no matter how long (millions or billions of years) it supposedly took.
And last but not least, any problems those papers may have had are not any more significant than some of the problems with evolution.
There are no absolute definitive facts for either side. Proponents choose a side based on the evidence they choose to believe as being most supportive of the answers they are looking for.
Please show the Intelligent Design papers that have been published in real, peer-reviewed scientific papers from 2005 to 2011. The list has NOT increased. If it were a real, productive field of science, you'd expect LEGITIMATE publications to increase exponentially, overcoming initial doubt and skepticism. Instead, Creationists go on publishing in religio-Creationist journals of their own creation.
It is disingenuous to claim there is a "conspiracy" to keep out good, sensible Creationist articles. The truth is, none have been submitted. I saw all of this nonsense as a science-student in the 1980's when the Religious Right was in full sway and trying to push its Creationist nonsense at the time. Here's what the journal SCIENCE had to say about claims Creationist articles were being "kept out" of science journals:
http://www.sciencethinking.org/zoology/images-z/Sc...
SCIENCE, vol. 228 (17 May 1985, p. 837), "Evidence for Scientific Creationism?" Surveying the actual total number of Creationist papers submitted to biology journals in 3 years turned up only 18, hardly the basis of any viable movement, especially since some were not about Creationism at all. These were the SUBMITTED number, so it doesn't justify claims of a conspiracy of censorship. There was nothing valid to censor.
Please explain to us how the human retina is somehow better for being "wired backwards", and why this benefit is not used in the eyes of squids or snails, who have eyes wired the right way around, nerves leading out the back of the retina and out the eye...
And anybody who knows about the quaternary structure of proteins realizes that the Van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds in a protein cause it to be oriented only ONE way, so it is meaningless to talk about "a huge number of random configurations". Non-scientists are not competent to talk about the odds of formation. And when things actually are formed, the odds become 100%...
Here is at least two peer-reviewed articles that I was able to locate in the time I had available, I'm sure there are more!.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/peer-reviewed...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/peer-reviewed...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design
Again, I will remind you that this is 2011. The link to the survey you provided is from May 1985. If I am doing my math correctly, that's nearly 26 years ago. Is that the most recent data you could come up with? Besides, statistical surveys are not a very good argument against anything as they are usually nothing more than a calculated guess, which doesn't prove there weren't any articles. It's possible they just didn't get included in the survey.
As far as the human eye is concerned, it's not “wired backward” it was just designed to accommodate the intended user. A horse has 4 legs and can run faster and jump higher than any human. Does that mean human legs were built wrong? There is a whole host of animals that have organs that perform better, such as the nose on a dog, or the eyes of an eagle, than those of humans. Where as animals and other living creatures depend on their senses for survival, humans rely on intelligence. So while an increase in physical or sensory performance would be nice, it's not quite as necessary for humans. Because they are different does not mean they were built incorrectly.
I am sorry about the confusion regarding the alphabet analogy. I think you missed my point. Maybe this will help:
Casey Luskin July 19, 2010
According to McIntosh, one major reason for this is "the irreducibly complex nature of the machinery involved in creating the DNA/mRNA/ ribosome/amino acid/protein/DNA-polymerase connections." He continues:
All of these functioning parts are needed to make the basic forms of living cells to work. ... This, it may be argued, is a repeat of the irreducible complexity argument of Behe [67], and many think that that debate has been settled by the work of Pallen and Matzke [68] where an attempt to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum rotary motor as a development of the Type 3 secretory system has been made. However, this argument is not robust simply because it is evident that there are features of both mechanisms which are clearly not within the genetic framework of the other. That is, the evidence, far from pointing to one being the ancestor of the other, actually points to them both being irreducibly complex. In the view of the author this argument is still a very powerful one.
Is THAT all you can provide in SIX YEARS of activity from 2005 to 2011?? Evolutionists publish more papers in the peer-reviewed journals (which INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN... is NOT, since it is Creationist-founded) every THREE days than the Creationists have EVER published.
The "calculated guess" from 1985 surveyed ALL biology journals where talk about life-origins was supposed to exist, and the reason Creationist papers were rejected by editors (for example, because of their "high-school theme quality" or because of the refusal to cite extensive bodies of literature on certain points that went against their theories). The 1985 paper intended to show that Creationist claims of being "blocked out" by "bias" were unfounded.
My 2005 link showed ALL the papers mentioning Creationism which were actually published in peer-reviewed, real science journals, plus non-science journals like BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY which is run by philosophers, not biologists. You really haven't added many papers to that link if you mention only two. This number of papers is equal to the output of all the world's evolutionists in THREE DAYS. There's a reason for that: evolution is a fruitful area of science that explains things and can be built on. Creationism explains nothing and gets us no nearer any useful product, say, a Create-o-wave oven to make food magically out of nothingness. But it would be childish to expect magical belief-systems to produce anything in reality.
And who are YOU to claim the human eye is "good enough" and we must tolerate a vision obscured by our own retina's nerves? Why not just have an Intelligent Designer run the nerves out the BACK of the eye where they would not be a nuisance? It would have been SO EASY, and given an INSTANT improvement in visio...IF in fact the eye were a "created" thing. Why did the Intelligent Designer run the nerves out the BACKS of the eyes of squids, octopuses and snails but not reptiles and mammals?
I think you are not really aware of how dead, dead, dead any talk of "Irreducible Complexity" is:
For starters, the two papers mentioned were peer reviewed and published by the Wessex Institute of Technology in the UK. They are not creationist founded.
When you compare the number of people doing research for evolution to the number of people studying intelligent design, of course there will be more papers published. So, what’s your point? More people, more papers, doesn’t make them right.
Your sarcasm (Create-o-wave oven to make food magically out of nothingness) and mockery (childish to expect magical belief-systems to produce anything in reality) of the study of intelligent design is typical of a supporter of evolution.
It is apparent that you, like many others in the science fields have closed your mind to the possibility of a designer. You have made your decision and I respect your choice.
However, I have also made my decision. The way I see it, evolution has scientific evidence, analysis, and speculation. The problem arises from the speculation. There are many unanswered questions such as (Where did the first organism come from that began the evolutionary tree?) with evolution that scientists claim the answers just have not been discovered yet. But when confronted with an unanswered question regarding intelligent design, such as (Who is the designer?) They immediately say it is supernatural garbage. Is it possible the designer has not been discovered yet by scientists?
My choice is intelligent design. Once you discover who the designer is, all the questions in evolution are answered.
Why isn't the Creationist faction of scientists, much less than 1% of scientists, able to sway more people? A correct idea would catch like wildfire in science. So why are they still crash-landing after 30 years of this stuff?
It's hardly sarcasm to say that Creationism is magical thinking. Have YOU discovered who this designer is? What questions about evolution are answered by Creationism? Where are those Create-o-wave ovens, then?
Here's a link to the faulty eye design issue.
You may not like it, but if you are genuine in knowing the answer, here it is.
aka-dj,
Thanks for the link. I still say there is no flaw in the design.
For evolutionists to criticize design elements is a weak argument. Are they saying that because humans don't have the same eye as another organism that there is a flaw in the design?
If cats had tails like a monkey and a nose like an elephant they would be able to climb trees a lot better. If fish had lungs and mammals had gills we wouldn't be limited to in or out of water either. Are these all flaws in design?
As far as I am concerned any evolutionist argument that says there can not be a designer because it would be better if ...change any organism any way you want to improve it...is lame.
The world is full of diversity and its meant to be that way.
I wasn't questioning the design myself.
It just happened that I was reading about this very thing before I came to your hub. I thought it curious that it was a "coincidence", so I posted the link. The comment was aimed at Pierre.
Wait a minute. You're giving me nonsense from a site called Creation MINISTRIES? From a guy with no degrees after his name? He's spouting a lot of nonsense about "heat damage from light" but fails to explain how the snail, which lives in air like we do, somehow doesn't succumb to this damage with its eye. It does not do enough to justify the obvious flaw in the "Design" of the eye, so we must conclude there really was no design after all.
Pierre,
About the author:
Peter W.V. Gurney
Ophthalmologist
Peter Gurney qualified in medicine at the University of Bristol, England in 1960. He spent nearly six years as a medical missionary working amongst Muslims in Pakistan, Aden, Ethiopia and Eritrea before returning to the UK to specialize in ophthalmology and completed his training at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London. He is a fellow of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and of Ophthalmologists, and has practiced as a consultant ophthalmologist in the West Midlands since 1980, retiring from full time service in 1998.
Please do not include me in the "we" when you conclude there really was no design.
I am really puzzled why you think eyes that work perfectly fine for the intended user are defective because they are not like the eyes of another organism.
As I have already mentioned there is a lot of variety in the organ performance of all living creatures. Does variance in performance make them defective? So because a human can't run as fast as an ostrich, does that make our legs defective? I'm sorry, but your reasoning just doesn't make any sense to me.
aka-dj,
Again, thanks for the link. My reply to your comment was also meant for Pierre. I think you and I are on the same page in this discussion.
BTW, your comment couldn't have come at a better time. It was just the support I needed. Thanks.
Ron
That's ok. Glad it helped.
I think Pierre ir correct there IS a flaw in the design of (his) eye!
He can't see the forrest for the trees, as the saying goes.
I see this type of attitude in atheist/evolutionist arguments too often. They are given the truth about something, but they outright reject it simply because it doesn't fit their bias.
In fact, I have yet to see ONE of them say something like "wow, that's fascinating information. I think I'll follow that up."
I sure am glad you have as much knowledge as you do. It encourages the layman in me a lot. Blessings.
I think Pierre kept referring to the design flaw because deep down he knows that something so different from his preferred design pretty much confirms that the human eye is NOT a product of evolution. He just can't wrap his head around that concept.
Tony,
Thank you for your comments. Some people have difficulty believing something different from what they "want" to believe. The evidence they have seen leads then to believe what they believe. Rather than continuing to learn, they are satisfied with what they know, and therefore refuse to accept any knowledge that is contrary to what they believe.
Ron
Related
- 14
- EDITOR'S CHOICE12
- 42
- 1373
- 14
21