The Evidence For Intelligent Design

There has been a lot of talk in the past year (and probably more) about teaching intelligent design in the classroom alongside Evolution as a scientific theory. some states even have disclaimers in their biology books stating "evolution is just a theory", I guess their board members don't know the difference between a speculatory theory and a scientific theory.

I was just wondering, Is there actually any evidence for intelligent design it;s self or does it entirely consist of refuting claims made by evolution?

All other sciences have to go through a process. The scientific process looks like this;

1. Observation
2. Speculation
3. Empirical testing
4. Theory
5. Peer review

How would intelligent design get through this process and be considered a scientific theory?

I'd like to post some guidelines to consider when posting a reply if i may

1. Disproving evolution doesn't prove intelligent design
2. Please don't quote scripture, This isn't about religion after all, Right?
3. Think about what would be taught in the "intelligent design" class
4. Look up false dichotomy

I have bolded the specific points i would like people to address.

 

So, in other words, despite your preamble, you would ask a question yet limit the answer only by suggesting that Christians cannot reply by what they believe and how they believe it.

This is really a shame because if you would allow this you would find that, as I believe, the Bible certainly allows for evolution, in the very least it does not specifically deny God's use of it as a method.

Conservative Christians do not, on the whole allow for this. Fundamental Christians may.

Do you know the difference?

You can only answer this by acknowledging:

1. Disproving intelligent design does not prove evolution
2. Please don't quote science this is not about science afterall.
3. Think about what would be taught in an evolution class (don't have to
look too far for that).
4. Look up "false Dichotomy" and poker terms for "stacking the deck."

 

I'm really interested in checking out the replies to this thread... But all you did was sidestep the question...

stox: nice topic, I'm wondering if anyone can try to prove "design" instead of going straight to trying to disprove the alternatives... Just because a ball isn't blue, doesn't mean it's red...

 

Per his instruction, which was the point of my post. If I not permitted to reply by what I believe is the truth, perhaps I could back into it. take a look at point #2 for instance:

How on earth can I answer point #3 then?

Hence my point #4:

 

Intelligent design advocates claim that intelligent design is nothing to do with religion, They claim it's a science. So it should be subject to the scientific process. But either way, Claiming it's in the bible isn't proof of anything anyway.

1) how would it deal with that scientific process?
2) What scientific evidence is there that intelligent design exists?

If it's a fact it should be considered science, And if it's a science it should be subject to the scientific process.

 

Dead Corn, if you want to believe it, that's fine. But don't masquerade that psuedo-science as something rooted in the scientific method when it is not. You want to believe it, that's all well and good, but it's not science and as such, doesn't belong in a biology or any science class.

 

Well intelligent design takes steps that differ from scientific logic by explaining things in a different light. For instance, their is evidence that the big bang theory is true with the way the universe is expanding outward from a central location. We think of a very large exposive force that created the dispurtion but we can't prove entirely that is came from a natural occuring force, we use the logic that a very large force was needed to make it happen like perhaps something didn't mix well in an emmence source and boom the big bang.

When you have scientific logic that could be questioned differently you can see how intelligent design can also add speculation to scientific probability.

Maybe life didn't spontaneously form, maybe it came from a tiny form of life hitching a ride on a meteor (and where did that come from if true?).

Who knows maybe life as we know is directly from aliens from another world and we are just an experiment. We can see the logic in evolution with chomosome studies and just observing how things are similar like the way animals have similar biological systems but how did it all start is an interesting question.

 

Everything that science has observed is in step with the Bible.

Including the order of creation as written in Genesis 1.

One of the odd things about the order of creation is that light came before any planets or stars.

Turns out that the expansion theory that "science" has come up with says the exact same thing.

Amazing. "Science" and the Bible both agree that light was here before the stars. How is that logical to ancient peope who would logically assume that the stars came first as they can look into the night sky and see that light comes from stars?

Wouldn't it have made more sense for "illogical" religious people to write that God created the stars first?

 

Please stay on topic.

 

It's very much on topic. You asked for proof of intelligent design, I proved that science agrees with the Bible in the order of creation. I also showed that the Bible makes an illogical claim that is backed up by the latest "scientific" theories of the order of how things came about.

Not my problem you can't deal with it.

The only thing "science" hasn't argued in complete agreement with Genesis 1 is who is behind it and how long it took. Imagine that.

Who is behind it, and how long it took are completely religious arguments that don't belong in the classroom.

You have yet to tell me one great scientific advancement has come about because of the study of evolution. Evolutionists like to claim that creationism is holding mankind back, how is the study of evolution moving us forward?

 

I asked two very specific questions, if you are unable to answer them please don't post. We don't want to hear about your bible. We want the two questions answered that would validate intelligent design as a science.

 

fire emits light and when planets are being formed they glow from the molten substance.

 

No, that is why I believe they are both possible. That God used evolution to create the earth. It's my personal belief from comparing the scriptures to science, I don't think the Bible rules it out, and I don't think it's easy to rule out of science. Possible, but not likely.

Hope that helped, but that's not the common Christian opinion.

 

the big bang might have emitted light of some sort.

 

Validate Evolution as a science. What experiment has been done and repeated that shows that one species can evolve into another? If you can't produce that experiment then Evolution is not valid according to the scientific method. And as such, has as much place in a classroom as ID.

Instead of wasting time on your religion that the earth is billions of years old and we all evolved from sludge, we could be teaching real actual verifiable science.

Evolution is a religion based on science.

ID is a religion based on science.

Neither belong in the classroom.

ID teaches us that everything is logical and orderly and as such, can be scientifically understood.

Evolution teaches us that everything is random and without order and as such, can't be scientifically validated.

Which do you think is a more beneficial way of thinking? Considering that it is a fact that the universe is governed by rules that can be understood.

Science has shown that light can exist seperate of any matter. It's its own entity. Light doesn't need a "source."

Seems interesting that a book that is thousands of years old and was written when people would logically think that stars emit light, would say that light was created before stars.

If you completely ignore what Genesis says, then yes, the Bible doesn't rule it out.

What do you gain by accepting the religious, unverifiable claims of Evolution that we evolved from sludge and the universe is billions of years old?

A pat on the back from evolutionists?

 

I'm pretty sure this thread was asking for reasons why people believe in intelligent design; not evolution...

Once again, intelligent design?

verifiable science; such as...?

 

Intelligent design can't be proven scientifically, there is no way to measure it, and if this can't be done, it can't be considered a science, whether or not it exists. The same goes for phenomenons like psychic abilities, it may exist, but until science has enough sophisticated tools to measure it, it can't be considered scientific.

I'm not saying the universe is not a result of intelligent design, but how can it be proven?

There is no scientific proof which supports intelligent design. This doesn't mean it isn't there, science just hasn't been able to measure it yet. Some scientists believe that the Universe is too complex to come into being by chance, and they believe that it is was the result of intelligent design, which would suggest the existence of God. The problem is, there are a lot of paradoxes with the concept of God, so this issue if pretty difficult.

 

So why isn't this same standard applied to Evolution?

Oh yes, that's quite the short list. I see now why we fill our time with unverifiable assumptions about the age of the earth and the origin of species. Otherwise we'd have to talk about how we can manipulate our world to make it a better place through creative use of materials and power.

Why waste our time teaching kids how to take care of our environment, cure diseases, understand how our body works, create electronic tools, program computers, how ingredients work to make food delicious or yucky?

 

Answer the questions or stop posting. You are doing exactly what i predicted you would. You are offering no evidence for your theory other than facile arguments against opposing theories.

Stop taking the bait guys. Every time you address their questions you give them an easier way of derailing the thread.
Make them answer the questions.

 

The reason I think that evolution can go with the bible is because how exactly do you explain the scientific process God used... it's not written out in the Bible. It says he "spoke it into being", but what does that even mean? Remember there was no time before time anyway, so evolution could have happened in a millisecond.

My big problem is that everyone always tries to split it down the middle. I've never found science to be a problem with any of my interpretations of the Bible. I find the Bible makes me curious about science and how it was done. Part of the beauty of life, to me. I can't just stop at "spoke into being", I'm too curious.