The Top Reasons For Intelligent Design

I recently got a heads-up to check out Intelligent Design Facts, and as I have had a long standing interest in the intelligent design vs. evolution battle I found it a refreshingly scientific and logical approach to defending intelligent design without resorting to the absolutist approach of "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

The website essentially covers similar ground to Dr. Stephen C. Meyer's "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" but it does so through a very stimulating and salubrious approach. Consider it a guide to the justifications for intelligent design based exclusively on scientific facts written in a way that anyone with an eighth grade education can easily comprehend it all: Not a single phylogeny, ontogeny, or genocentricity in sight. However, instead of just ignoring those aspects of intelligent design, the website deals with those topics without once alienating its readers by even mentioning the topics by name. This represents an extremely wise approach given the level of interest in intelligent design by average Americans who lack an alphabet soup of diploma letters after their names.

As in Dr. Meyer's thesis much of the website centers on the Cambrian Explosion, but then again it is the primary event which evolutionary theory has proven effectively incapable of explaining, so the focus is definitely justified. To the lay person who may not be familiar with the Cambrian Explosion, it was a five million year period where almost 90% of all types of life present today suddenly appeared, fully formed and ready to go. The website meticulously explains, always in easy to understand language, the extent of the innovation in the basic forms of so many organisms that occurred in this period, and how recent scientific discoveries have determined that the very development of body forms we see around us is not possible under any current evolutionary theory.

It is also refreshing that the website does not lean on any theological crutches. Although the conclusion on the website is that according to the scientific evidence there has to be an intelligent sapience conducting this design, the site's articles do not ever go beyond a strictly scientific analysis of that evidence and venture off into the realm of theology.

The section headings sum up the areas which are credibly covered by the website in a thorough and scientifically valid manner:

  • Small Scale Evolution Can't Cause Large Scale Changes
  • The Cambrian Explosion
  • Defining The Forms Of Living Things
  • The Cambrian Specified Complexity
  • New Genes & Proteins
  • The Mathematical Impossibility Of Genetic Evolution
  • The Great Darwinian Paradox
  • The Illusion Of Self-Organization
  • Hurry Up & Wait Evolution
  • Evolution Cannot Account For Origins

There is also a resource section which lists hundreds of references.

Some of the pull quotes are extremely interesting:

 

It's a very interesting, if busy, website which is definitely worth a look. The intelligent design versus evolution confrontation can always use a new voice of scientific reason. As to my own personal position on Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design, it's completely irrelevant to the overall debate and I'll keep that to myself, thanks. I also will not engage in comment debates but I want to be very clear that inflammatory or obscene statements on either side of the debate will be deleted prior to being made visible in the comments section.

More by this Author


Comments 14 comments

Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 6 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

Darwin made a first stab at something difficult. But there is nobody in the Scientific community holding out that Darwin was right. His theories have been superseded. Quaint that there are still people in Religious camps arguing that he was wrong. They are simply out of touch.


John T. profile image

John T. 6 years ago from Portland Oregon

Nice post I enjoyed the information on ID.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Hi, Paraglider! That is one of the main reasons why I found that site so different and captivating. It actually goes through all of the post-Darwinian theories showing how each seems to have a gaping hole in the middle which is best filled by the "hand" of a sapient designer. Again, it's basically the same info as Dr. Meyer's work, but it is written so that anyone can read it without referring to the dictionary six times in each sentence. :)

Thanks, John T.! :)


WillGrander profile image

WillGrander 6 years ago from New York

A lot of this still seems God of the Gaps-ish. "We don't understand how this works, so G...I mean, an intelligent designer did it." Not really a good explanation for anything, unfortunately.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

I can understand your recalcitrance but if you read that site's clear and easy to understand review of the scientific data, I have to admit that it is quite convincing. Thanks for your comment! :)


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Hal,

The site you promote as scientific is actually just a large advertisement for the Argument From Ignorance. The Argument from Ignorance fallaciously claims that disproof of one idea validates a competing idea.

Instead of offering their own rational explanation for events, all they are doing is lobbying and trying to prove their opponent "doesn't believe what is right before your own eyes. So who ya gonna vote for?"

It's politics as usual. Don't be conned.

This site is not science. ID offers no predictive possibilties or falsifications. It is simply creationism.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Sorry to disagree with you, but that site seems to be a very accurate paragraph by paragraph rewriting (in simple terms to suit a wide audience) of Dr. Meyer's peer reviewed paper. It's even specified as such right on the site. I'll take a peer reviewed paper written by a Ph.D. over anyone else's comment any day of the week. :)


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Hal,

Not to quibble, and you are entitled to believe whatever you wish, but peer-review is a little trick the Discovery Institute has learned to utilize to make their propaganda appear more "scientific" in nature, by creating their own publications with their own "peers" and "reviews". The critical issue is still in what journal and by what peers was the review made.

Picking out acknowledged holes in the fossil record has absolutely no bearing on whether a creative force did or did not originate life. Can we agree on that much?

Because to believe otherwise is the exact same thing as claiming that because you cannot produce film documentation of your dad placing Christmas presents under the tree it is proof that Santa was here and did plant the gifts himself.

That doesn't sound so "scientific" does it?

Evolutionary theory has never ducked issues like the so-called Cambrian Explosion. But the best science ever attempts is a rational explanation for physical phenomenon, so if you are waiting for "proof" you will forever be disappointed, as the bar of "proof" is one you set for yourself.

Truth is subjective. You either believe it or you don't.

Thanks. See ya.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Hal,

It took about 2 minutes to dig this out from a web search and Wikipedia: (Intelligent Design Facts run by: Access Research Network (ARN), based in Colorado Springs, evolved from an earlier creationist organization, Students for Origins Research (SOR). It acts as a de facto auxiliary website to the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC)[citation needed] in promoting intelligent design (ID),)

So much for neutral scientific observations. The common ancestor of Intelligent Design is The Discovery Institute.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Please review the last paragraph of the hub:

"As to my own personal position on Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design, it's completely irrelevant to the overall debate and I'll keep that to myself, thanks. I also will not engage in comment debates."

Therefore, I'm not coming down for or against Dr. Meyer. All I'm stating is that the paper was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

You want to argue against their peer qualifications, go ahead. I won't join you. :)


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Naw. I don't object to the findings - only to the idea that somehow these findings are supportive of creation or a creator or designer.

Like I said in my original comment, the idea that disproving evolution somehow proves ID is an Argument from Ignorance (if you can't prove yours, mine is right) and also uses the logical fallacy of False Dilemma (only two possiblities exist).

See ya.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

Have a fun day! :)


6 years ago

evolution is a fact


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 6 years ago from Toronto Author

ID does not dispute that.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working