Isn't Intelligent Design as a theory just a little too convenient?
453587
Science is the study of the natural world.  A "god" or other supernatural being falls outside of science.\n\nIntelligent design contributes nothing to the fields of science.  It offers no testable theories... nothing can be predicted and tested from it.  All it says is, "something created it".  That offers absolutely  nothing from a scientific perspective.  It is an embarrassment to education that people actually think it represents scientific theory.\n\nSorry about the rant.... I totally agree that science should be kept free of supernatural beliefs (because science can't work on what it can't test or observe).
879038
you should believe in intelligent design because if you think about it, the chances that the world and all of the diverse animal and plant life just "happened" are sooooooooo slim, it's pretty much impossible. an interesting book on the subject is "the evolution of a creationist". very fascinating...\n\nanother thing to think about- how can something come from nothing? scientists have tried to make something from nothing, and they have been unsuccessful.
817005
Yes, it requires intelligent design.\nBut it also requires intelligence to realize that fact.
940245
I think ID asks a lot of interesting questions ... about the nature of information, complexity, form to function, etc.\n\nHowever\n(1) A bunch of questions, even good ones, does not constitute a theory; \n(2) Most of these questions have been answered for decades in such sciences as information theory, thermodynamics, chaos theory, chaotics, emergence theory, etc. all without resorting to a 'designer';\n(3) A good explanation explains complex things in terms of simpler principles ... ID does the opposite, it explains complex things in terms of an even more complex and mysterious entity ... a "designer" with unknown properties, unknown motives, unknown mechanisms ... basically something of infinite complexity.  It makes things less understandable, not more.\n\nSo count me firmly in the D camp.\n(A) It is an incredibly simple and elegant theory (although that is not reason enough to accept it); and\n(B) The evidence is overwhelming, and still growing.  Evidence from fossils, genetics, molecular (DNA) evidence, morphology, embyrology, cladistics, bacteriology, virology, immunology, biogeography, etc. etc.\n(C) It makes predictions all the time that would falsify the theory if found to be false ... but all of them have been born out.
7893
Creation-DNA and the human body are far too complex to be be thrown together by chance.\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life.\n\nNow, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidently evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots. Science has its own beliefs and faiths. One of them in nucleonic glue holding like particles together in an atom, or evolution which is merely a theory accepted as fact. It is just an agenda to keep God out of the public arena.
820895
The theory of intelligent design is the same as when the ancient celts said "mushroom circles form because of fairies". Infact their is no evidence of intelligent design at all. Creationist Science is completely non empirical and a total insult to real science. Its either the earth is a giant labratory of differrent combinations of rna that is billions of years old and the universe started with the culmination of a big bang that was created by what quantum physics calls "the quantum bounce effect" or a black hole creating a baby universe. Or... some giant mythological being created a man and a woman from clay in a magic garden 4000 years ago. Thousands of years ago people did not have science and the world was a big and scary place, they were at the mercy of the elements so they used Gods and Goddesses to humanize the world around them. Sooner or later that developed into monothiesm. Then the early christians stole their creator diety from the Hebrew people. Talk about copywriting. However even though their is tons of real evidence backing up the anthropic principle. Millions of people are very primitive and need a diety otherwise their world view is incomplete.
95642
Intelligent Design is basically saying that some intelligent being (God or some alien from outside this Universe) created our universe and life as we know it.  Its basic philosophy is that our universe is too complex to have happened by accident.  Particularly that even the simplest form of life could never have come into existence randomly.\n\nAn example used is the "watch theory".  If you put all the necessary parts of a watch in a jar, and shook the jar randomly, even in four billion years the watch would never put itself together.  The same is said of life: a bacterium is much more complex than a watch, so how could it have randomly appeared?\n\nI see Intelligent Design as a crossover between the "Big Bang" theory and the "Seven Days" theory.  The universe was created by God, who also created the laws of Physics.  So the Bible is right that God created the Universe, and scientists are right that it didn't suddenly appear in its present state...parts were created, and parts evolved.\n\nSo both theories are valid in Intelligent Design.  But yes, I have heard both Evolutionists and Creationists mock the Intelligent Design theory.\n\nIntelligent Design is one argument widely used by creationists.  It has taken on popularity as discoveries in biology and physics reveal how intricate our universe and we, ourselves, are.
943478
Ah yes.... the uncaused causer...\n\nBy raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexity, intelligent design also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Richard Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the intelligent designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation," since such an answer would be unscientific. With religious creationism, the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, but in intelligent design, the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. As a result, intelligent design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it.\n\nElliott Sober says that by intelligent design's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex: "Any mind in nature that designs and builds an irreducibly complex system is itself irreducibly complex" Sober says that this an argument that intelligent design proponents still need to respond to.\n\nIf intelligent design proponents invoke an uncaused causer or deity to resolve this problem, they contradict a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that design requires a designer.
895089
no but it messes up quite a few more conservative ideas. Still plent of theories without multiple universes that will offer equally palatable solutions.\n\n(I'm a multiverser myself!!)
919231
its a complex question with a simple answer.. life just easier than you are giving it credit for.. if life were more difficult, then perhaps such evolutionary developments like you are suggesting would be necesary
1159763
The theory of evolution is backed by a lot of scientific proof, while religion isn't. Science is what we teach in schools. If you or your child think that intelligent design is what is correct, you can think of it as being informed as to what the theory of evolution is, not being told what actually happened.
440358
No.\n\nSchneb is being purposefully deceiving by quoting Darwin out of context.  Isn't that on a par with lying?\n\nEbertis should read a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer.  In it, he gives very good explanations of how intelligent people can deceive themselves into believing something very wrong.  He should also know that Behe has been thoroughly debunked and for facts and evidence he should take a look at talkorigins.org.\n\nFor those of you who defend "intelligent design," maybe you should take a look at this question:\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsLJbgNxwECve8d_AOzB.wfsy6IX?qid=1006042026788\n\nSecretsauce got it right away.
396045
Intelligent design is the theory that a higher power (God) created the universe. It is the opposite of the evolution theory. One argument for it is that the complexity of life suggests that an intelligent being is necessary to create it. An argument against it is that there is no solid proof that a higher being exists. Some proposed solutions to the shortage in oil include drilling into new reserves, developing more fuel efficient products, and producing alternative energy products. This took a while to type, so I would appreciate your vote as your favorite answer.
49693
Well, I doubt many people want a full course on intelligent design. Rather, they are pushing for a brief (a few minutes) statement in bio classes along the lines of :\n\n"Not everyone agrees with evolution, and there are religious beliefs which conflict with it, as well as this intelligent design concept. Go read the Pandas and People book for more info if you want. Please don't sue us."
18452
By showing that they don't contradict each other. If the Universe with its physical laws are linked with an intelligent design, and the nature of laws allow evolution as a phenomenon to occur in a direction towards conscience, then the two theories can complement each other. Intelligent design and evolution can work together towards complexity.
44398
No. In fact, the whole point of Intelligent Design is merely to cause a public debate on evolution. The fact is that Intelligent Design starts with a conclusion (Creationism), then works out a package which was designed to be school-friendly, and provide "evidence" which might trick people who are unfamiliar with the real science of the situation. The ID movement's claims that ID is intended to be non-specific in its creator is revealed by the Wedge document to be a lie.
438434
It's possible to be so smart that simple things become difficult.  It's possible to be brilliant and have no common sense.  It's possible that ignorance is bliss.\n\nSide note:  God takes the simple things of this world to confound the wise, the Bible says. . .if that's true. . .wise people often make mountains out of molehills. . .or try.