Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[whatthe_fuzz]

first definitions

 

Intelligent Design-a higher being was responsible for the origin of life on Earth. i.e. God, Aliens, Chuck Norris, etc...

 

Evolution (macro not micro)-one species began to adapt which led to a new species which adapted which made a new species etc... in short, different species originate from one ancestor species due to adaptations. kinda like natural modding ;)

 

food for thought on both sides.

 

arguments against the Intelligent Design side:

Where is this intelligent being? 

Why are there genetic flaws in certain creatures? 

Why are things made imperfect? 

 

arguments against the Evolutionist:

Why are there no crossover fossils? i.e. a fossil of a horse with a neck longer than normal but shorter than a giraffe.

Why do we still have "inferior" species? if evolution is survival of the fittest, wouldn't the lesser die out eventually?

why don't we see macroevoution taking place anytime recently? Like in the past millennium? 

 

food for thought like i said. i want to hear your side. 

[Dave :)]

You might want to change your "For" categories to "Against".

Also, some people maintain that you can have both an intelligent design(er) and evolution - arguably, the Intelligent Designer brought about evolution. My personal belief is that there is always the possibility that there could be an intelligent designer - who are we to say there cannot be? However, the "evidence" does seem to point toward an argument for evolution as to explain how species develop and how we, as humans, got to where we are today. I don't think evolution provides all the answers as i don't believe science has all  the answers; but then again neither does an Intelligent designer.

[T.Vengeance]

I am not gonna weigh in on this because I have no opinion. I just hope that the people who don't trust what the forerunners of science are doing, don't vote, or participate in any science activities (because they are a determent to scientific innovation). I do have one question though. Why does Intelligent Design always equate to perfection? Suppose we are the intelligent designers of something that is so profound in the future. Don't we make mistakes too?

[Volbet]

whatthe_fuzz, on 20 Jul 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

For the Evolutionist:

Why are there no crossover fossils? i.e. a fossil of a horse with a neck longer than normal but shorter than a giraffe.

Why do we still have "inferior" species? if evolution is survival of the fittest, wouldn't the lesser die out eventually?

why don't we see macroevoution taking place anytime recently? Like in the past millennium?

food for thought like i said. i want to hear your side.

I can atleast try to comment these since biology is an intrest of mine, but keep in mind I'm not a biologist

• 1. First of all. We are lucky that there are any fossils at all, since the enviroment around the decaying body as to be just right. As for the transitional fossils. Every single fossil we find is a transitional fossil. Even modern day Homo Sapiens is transitional. That is the way evolution works. Small changes over long periods of time. we even have a chart of skulls from humaniod primates that goes back to the common ancestor we share with the other big primates.
• 2. This is not really a statment against anything. "Inferior" species is not a term used in biology, so it renders it meaningless. And it can take thousands, maybe millions of years for a species to be rendered extinct from to much competion in its natural habitat. The most recent of mass extinction due to "inferiority". Happend when New Zealand was first colonized. Because of all the animals the foreigners brought with them, the Dodo bird went extinct in a very small time span. This was because the Dodo had no natural enemy in its natural habitat and therefor it had nothing to fear. Therefor they nested on the ground, where they were easy prey for settler's dogs and cats.
• 3. Macro evolution takes millions of years to make a noticable difference, thats why we don't see over a millenium. We as a species have only exsisted for about 150.000 years. That is nothing compered to other species, and we simply haven't had the time to see any changes. We have only had modern biology since 1859. So only 154 years

But again remember: I'm not a biologist, I'm a guy who graduated high school at the age of 25.

I am not going to participate in any "creationist vs. ID vs. Darwinian" disussions since there are way better sources for that, than me. I recommend http://talkorigins.org/ if you have any questions.

 

Edit: Not to say you can't ask me question about evolution, I just think there are more qualified people out there

:

[Dave :)]

Why does Intelligent Design always equate to perfection? Suppose we are the intelligent designers of something that is so profound in the future. Don't we make mistakes too?

 

I guess because the whole notion of an "Intelligent Designer" is that they are not like humans. They are perfect beings, therefore their work must also be perfect. I don't want to take this completely into Religion vs Science; but, God is viewed, in Christian theology, as a perfect being, therefore, his attributes and all his creation is equally perfect. Imperfection arose through human free will not through God's lack of perfection.

[Wi RoZ]

What I've learned in my life is that a lot of people actually limit their worldview to human science, simply because many people think that humans are superior to everything in the currently "known" universe. But no matter how much you argue about religion or Intelligent Design, we will never be able to solve questions like why the world isn't perfect. Christians believe that the world is imperfect due to the first sin ever by Adam and Eve in which all humans have fallen. But that doesn't solve the question why Adam and Eve did sin to God. Also science is constantly changing its own theories. When talking about science I would like to refer to a phrase Sophia said in AC Revelations: "The more we discover of this universe (originally she said "world"), the less we seem to know". I think that phrase will be the truth until the world is going to end. Does eternity and an unlimited "space" exist? I think so. And that is why I don't understand why people are limiting their view on life, this world and the universe to science. 

[T.Vengeance]

I guess because the whole notion of an "Intelligent Designer" is that they are not like humans. They are perfect beings, therefore their work must also be perfect. I don't want to take this completely into Religion vs Science; but, God is viewed, in Christian theology, as a perfect being, therefore, his attributes and all his creation is equally perfect. Imperfection arose through human free will not through God's lack of perfection.

Yeah I guess the term "Intelligent Design" is a misnomer then, if the whole premise is perfection. "Perfect Design" seems more adequate and should've been used instead when the phrase "Intellegent Design" was first coined.

[Dave :)]

Yeah I guess the term "Intelligent Design" is a misnomer then, if the whole premise is perfection. "Perfect Design" seems more adequate and should've been used instead when the phrase "Intellegent Design" was first coined.

 

This is getting into Philosophy more than anything; however, it's known as "Intelligent Design" as it was believed by Aquinas that all things have a cause and a purpose. For all things to have a purpose, they must have something which drives them to fulfill their purpose and this is only achievable through an intelligent designer - note: this doesn't necessarily equate to perfection. Where (i think) the view that intelligent design = perfection originates from is through Paley's Watchmaker analogy. Basically, this bloke called William Paley stumbled across a watch one day and compared the watch and the intricate internal mechanisms within it, to the world. He argued that the world has a similar set of intricate mechanisms - like a watch - and it was impossible that it came about through chance. Like a watch was intelligently designed, the world must also be designed and have an intelligent designer. Paley understood the watch to be perfect, and thus viewed the world to be perfect aswell. Obviously this view has been criticised by many and is now pretty redundant in terms of a credibility; nonetheless, it still provides plenty for us to ponder...

[T.Vengeance]

What I've learned in my life is that a lot of people actually limit their worldview to human science, simply because many people think that humans are superior to everything in the currently "known" universe. But no matter how much you argue about religion or Intelligent Design, we will never be able to solve questions like why the world isn't perfect. Christians believe that the world is imperfect due to the first sin ever by Adam and Eve in which all humans have fallen. But that doesn't solve the question why Adam and Eve did sin to God. Also science is constantly changing its own theories. When talking about science I would like to refer to a phrase Sophia said in AC Revelations: "The more we discover of this universe (originally she said "world"), the less we seem to know". I think that phrase will be the truth until the world is going to end. Does eternity and an unlimited "space" exist? I think so. And that is why I don't understand why people are limiting their view on life, this world and the universe to science. 

The problem with that argument is that science works. To put it into perspective, more than 90% of our modern world (last 200 years) is governed by science. If you take away science, we are back to the dark ages. Science cannot explain the metaphysical nor philosophy. And that is the whole problem. These two fields are so polar that when our world tries to use one to explain the other, worlds collide. Religion should not belong in Science and Science should not be in religion. The reason why there is always the Science vs Religion debate is because religion is limiting so much of science. The classic example is Galileo. If the Roman Catholic church were allowed to win, we'd all still be thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Let each field do its thing and as long as they don't bother each other, things will be alright.

 

Edit: Hmm..I seemed to have deviated from what I was going for. I meant, limiting our worldview on science seems to be alright since most advancements could be contributed to using the Scientific Method (that is not to say that it isn't flawed)

[LAwLz]

I don't really see how any rational and intelligent person could side with "intelligent design".

[Dave :)]

The problem with that argument is that science works. To put it into perspective, more than 90% of our modern world (last 200 years) is governed by science. If you take away science, we are back to the dark ages. Science cannot explain the metaphysical nor philosophy. And that is the whole problem. These two fields are so polar that when our world tries to use one to explain the other, worlds collide. Religion should not belong in Science and Science should not be in religion. The reason why there is always the Science vs Religion debate is because religion is limiting so much of science. The classic example is Galileo. If the Roman Catholic church were allowed to win, we'd all still be thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Let each field do its thing and as long as they don't bother each other, things will be alright.

 

Edit: Hmm..I seemed to have deviated from what I was going for. I meant, limiting our worldview on science seems to be alright since most advancements could be contributed to using the Scientific Method (that is not to say that it isn't flawed)

That is all well and good; however, i feel like Science has always had the assumption that "we are right - what we say is correct", and yet that isn't (and hasn't) always been the case. I feel like if you (not personal) take off your Science-tinted glasses, you would see and understand the world in a much different, perhaps even enlightening, view. I wouldn't say Science and Religion are polar opposites, certainly there physicists whom are also priests and heavily Religious - see John Polkinghorne. Case in point: Quantum Theory. This "Science" seems to be running contrary and coming up with theories which simply aren't compatible with current scientific views, certainly i would consider Quantum Theory in moving towards a more Philosophical and even Theological point of view, yet it is still considered within the realms of "Science".

[whatthe_fuzz]

The problem with that argument is that science works. To put it into perspective, more than 90% of our modern world (last 200 years) is governed by science. If you take away science, we are back to the dark ages. Science cannot explain the metaphysical nor philosophy. And that is the whole problem. These two fields are so polar that when our world tries to use one to explain the other, worlds collide. Religion should not belong in Science and Science should not be in religion. The reason why there is always the Science vs Religion debate is because religion is limiting so much of science. The classic example is Galileo. If the Roman Catholic church were allowed to win, we'd all still be thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Let each field do its thing and as long as they don't bother each other, things will be alright.

Edit: Hmm..I seemed to have deviated from what I was going for. I meant, limiting our worldview on science seems to be alright since most advancements could be contributed to using the Scientific Method (that is not to say that it isn't flawed)

I was going to try and avoid commenting but this statement is actually false...intelligent design is used in religion. but it is not religion. it is science. thus if a religious person uses intelligent design to justify their beliefs then they are using science to support religion. so yes religion and science go hand in hand.

and on a technical note, science by definition is a religion. its a belief system which relies on uncertainty. we dont know if the big bang happened therefor its a belief based on faith. just like God.

[Izomo]

Question really is, is intelligent design and/or evolution is science? 

 

Evolution is a scientific theory, peer reviewed and tested,

 

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, when peer reviewed it is destroyed, it can not be tested. It is for all intensive purposes it is an idea for the ignorant.

 

Here is a doc on Nova Science which shows how a trial (when happened had a real judge and real lawyers) played out. Warning, it is 2 hours long.

 

Intelligent Design - 

1. Everything is created separately, you do not transform slowly into another creature, you just be. I.e Wolf appears, then 200 years later a poodle appears, there is nothing linking them together.
2. God creates everything.

Evolution - 

1. Everything has a common ancestor and you transform slowly into another creature over time. I.e Wolf evolves from X, then over 200 years there are many mutations and now we have a poodle.
2. We don't know what created everything, but we are working on it.

That is my argument and explanation of everything. Examples should not be taken as real examples or fact. 

 

Watch the doc, it is really surprising how intelligent design supporters try to argue what they support is science and how easily science destroys their shit.

[Izomo]

That is all well and good; however, i feel like Science has always had the assumption that "we are right - what we say is correct", and yet that isn't (and hasn't) always been the case. I feel like if you (not personal) take off your Science-tinted glasses, you would see and understand the world in a much different, perhaps even enlightening, view. I wouldn't say Science and Religion are polar opposites, certainly there physicists whom are also priests and heavily Religious - see John Polkinghorne. Case in point: Quantum Theory. This "Science" seems to be running contrary and coming up with theories which simply aren't compatible with current scientific views, certainly i would consider Quantum Theory in moving towards a more Philosophical and even Theological point of view, yet it is still considered within the realms of "Science".

 

You have never heard a scientist say that they are more excited that they are wrong then right? 

[_ASSASSIN_]

intellegent design is probably the stupidest thing ever to side with in the modern age, where we have gained so much hierarchical knowledge, facts, facts, and more facts.
 

just think of it logically, god made the entire universe just for one species? and he creates this one species to worship him? seems like god is extremely insecure :P
plus, there are many loop holes, who created the creator of everything, because if he is so intelligent, clearly someone must have made him based on intelligent design theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

 

this guy also does a great explanation against intelligent design

[Jaybird]

evolution is not law. it is only theoretical. more science points towards a intelligent creator than is does toward random chance, evolutionary adaptation that darwin spoke of, or even evolution than is taught in school today. 

[Dave :)]

You have never heard a scientist say that they are more excited that they are wrong then right? 

 

I'm not saying that Science can never be wrong, i'm saying that their assumption - until proven otherwise - is that they're right.

[_ASSASSIN_]

evolution is not law. it is only theoretical. more science points towards a intelligent creator than is does toward random chance, evolutionary adaptation that darwin spoke of, or even evolution than is taught in school today. 

oh god, I hate it when people say this, theory isn't true? really?

because to be a theory, it must have scientific evidence, specifically evidence that is testable, and evolution has fit that.

 

[Volbet]

and on a technical note, science by definition is a religion. its a belief system which relies on uncertainty. we dont know if the big bang happened therefor its a belief based on faith. just like God.

Thsi is not true. We can measure the background radiation of the univers and by determening the wave lenght, determin how old the radiation is. And that points to a universe that is around 13.85 billon years old. As for the "bang" in big bang theory. We can observe that the universe is, not only expanding, but is expanding at a faster and faster rate. This means that there as most likely been a time when the universe was static and non-expanding.

Lastly. The assertion thst science is a religion is completly false. Most religions prides themselfs with having all the aswers and science does the opposite. Science says that we know nothing 100% and is always subject to change.

 

Edit: I'm not a cosmologist either

[whatthe_fuzz]

I don't really see how any rational and intelligent person could side with "intelligent design".

well thank you for this pointless comment. you're opinion has added no advancement to this thread.

"if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all" -my Mother

[Jaybird]

theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be.

it is simply an idea. and idea can be wrong but it can also be right. gravity is law because it happens, we can see it happen, we can test it and know that it will work 100% of the time. evolution is only a theory because it the result have not been 100% all the time, every day. 

[Dave :)]

Lastly. The assertion thst science is a religion is completly false. Most religions prides themselfs with having all the aswers and science does the opposite. Science says that we know nothing 100% and is always subject to change.

 

Edit: I'm not a cosmologist either

 

Sorry - but that is just completely false.

[Wi RoZ]

The problem with that argument is that science works. To put it into perspective, more than 90% of our modern world (last 200 years) is governed by science. If you take away science, we are back to the dark ages. Science cannot explain the metaphysical nor philosophy. And that is the whole problem. These two fields are so polar that when our world tries to use one to explain the other, worlds collide. Religion should not belong in Science and Science should not be in religion. The reason why there is always the Science vs Religion debate is because religion is limiting so much of science. The classic example is Galileo. If the Roman Catholic church were allowed to win, we'd all still be thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Let each field do its thing and as long as they don't bother each other, things will be alright.

 

Edit: Hmm..I seemed to have deviated from what I was going for. I meant, limiting our worldview on science seems to be alright since most advancements could be contributed to using the Scientific Method (that is not to say that it isn't flawed)

Just to be clear, I didn't say that science is a bad thing, I am certainly not "against" science (if that is maybe what you think), in fact I love science. What I just wanted to say is that when we are talking about things like where we come from, if there is a Intelligent Being out there or not, how this world has begun it's existance, etc. there are people that limit their view on that type of questions by science. You can say that there is no Intelligent Being and that religion is just a way of life by using science (or evolution theory) as an argument, and that's when I think that people limit their worldview to their own species. I hope that you get what I mean, I am not a native speaker so I don't know how to properly bring this.

[Izomo]

I'm not saying that Science can never be wrong, i'm saying that their assumption - until proven otherwise - is that they're right.

 

They are wrong and mocked until they prove otherwise. 

 

There are people trying to disprove what you are trying to prove, or prove the opposite of what you are. The race is to prove you are right and how your methods work. Even if you can prove you are right and your methods work, then someone else has to beable to recreate it and test it in order to peer review it. 

 

Take evolution/Darwnism, Darwin was mocked and belittled for his theory even though he could test it and prove it. Now we hold it as fact because there are many technologies which allow us to continue to prove it and test his theory.

[T.Vengeance]

Just to be clear, I didn't say that science is a bad thing, I am certainly not "against" science (if that is maybe what you think), in fact I love science. What I just wanted to say is that when we are talking about things like where we come from, if there is a Intelligent Being out there or not, how this world has begun it's existance, etc. there are people that limit their view on that type of questions by science. You can say that there is no Intelligent Being and that religion is just a way of life by using science (or evolution theory) as an argument, and that's when I think that people limit their worldview to their own species. I hope that you get what I mean, I am not a native speaker so I don't know how to properly bring this.

No I understand. And yeah point taken.