Why intelligent design?
535302
It's not all their fault.  Public education in some parts of the world is so bad (for various reasons) that many high-school graduates can barely read well enough to get into college and many others need remedial writing courses in their first year.  And things are even worse in the sciences.\n\nHaving said that, it is everyone's responsibility to get the facts, so to the extent that the creationists / IDiots refuse to do that, then I have to agree (alas) that they are morons.
244698
Because it is enormously incredible that in a universe made up of billions of stars, we are the only "intelligent" life that the universe has developed over millions and millions of years. The only thing more exciting than finding fellow intelligent ctreatures in the universe would be for them to find us.\n\nWe know that evolution on this planet was interrupted several times by earth-shattering events. What if those events did not happen on another planet in another galaxy (yes, even one)? How much further evolved and developed would they be? And if that other planet did not have the dead end dinosaurs turned out to be? Millions of years and no sign of intelligence. It took giving a little shrew-like creature a chance to evolve to get to us.\n\nHumans have gotten where we are because of curiosity, a need to find out why things happen and what is happening. Societies that stifle curiosity are the backward ones, destined to be lost in history.
937963
Antony Flew said that "Intelligent Design" lead him to the belief in the existence of God, but that he still does not believe in Christianity. \nThis happen a year or two ago. You might find something by searching "Gary Habermas, intelligent design, Tony Flew." \nI think http://www.str.org and http://www.reasons.org had the info posted on their web sites.
1082757
Most scientists now believe in intelligent design. Because of the new discoveries on DNA etc. they have rejected the evolution theory.
1066627
I am a Christian and I have found remarkable facts that have bolstered my faith in Intelligent Design. To name one, Irreducable Complexity. It is the fact, (Not Theory) that the simplest cell in our body was created completely in a moment's time, instead of a gradual evolution. It is like a mouse trap. There's a board, spring, lever, and latch. The cell, like the trap, has components that compliment each other in the same way the trap does. If you took one component away the trap would be defective, likewise if the cell is left without all the necessary systems it will perish leaving no time for evolution.
1119400
Ummm...that is probably not going to find an intelligent answer in "Programming & Design".  Try re-posting this in say, "Society & Culture" and you may get an intelligent answer.
1020485
It sounds as though you have been fooled by the\n"intelligent design" idea.  This says that there are\nthings that are "irreducibly complex" so that they\ncouldn't have evolved because all the parts have\nto be there or they wouldn't work.  Therefore any-\nthing irreducibly complex must have been created\nbecause it couldn't have evolved.\n\nUnfortunately, there is no proof that there is anything that is irreducibly complex.  The usual \nexamples given have turned out NOT to be so.\nFurthermore irreducible complexity, if it exists at\nall, would be a sign of poor design.  A good\ndesign has fail-safes built into it so the whole thing\ndoesn't break down if one tiny part fails.
347714
“Intelligent Design” is a less-scientific repackaging of the “Creationism” ideas pushed back in the 1980’s; and I say it is less scientific because the 1980’s version contained testable statements about the age of the Earth and the deposition of sediments – they were testable, they were tested, they were proved false.\n\nNo other scientific theory has been put forth that explains “how we got here” better than evolution – science, by definition, involves testable hypotheses – thus, the currently popular “Intelligent Design” idea (which has quite a few flaws, check out the link below to the Dover, PA trial about the biology “disclaimer”).
709446
if it was created by a creator, what then created the creator?\n\nOur physics breaks down inside an Event Horizon so there's really no way of currently knowing as to how it formed.  All we know is we're here, and by random chance.  \n\nCreationism is not a plausible explanation nor is "intelligent design."
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.
1173386
Yeah, the only people dumb enough to think you were really arguing for creationism were evolutionists.\n\nBecause your stupid question is exactly what evolutionists think creationism/Intelligent Design is about.  \n\nToo bad you people won't do any independent reading because we all know the public schools aren't going to broaden your knowledge of the topic.
197085
The idea that the world didn't come about by chance and evolution, at least not the way we think about it: ID says it was designed intelligently. \n\nMost science doesn't like to explain why things happen, just how. ID is trying to make God the 'why'. It's one last chance to make sure our kids come out of school with no idea at all how the world works, ensuring America's place in the world.
1153116
Evolution and intelligent design can't co-exist because evolution didn't and doesn't happen. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of Creationist scientists\n(past and present).\n http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Science is actually disproving evolution.\n\n* The Big Bang \nAbout fifty years ago, American astronomers studying the galactic star clusters, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.\n\nFirst there was nothing and it blew up and then there was everything and scientists have calculated that it all happened in 1043 of a second. The echo of that explosion can still be heard bouncing around in space. Scientists claim that in the big bang all of the fundamental particles necessary for life were formed. All of the complexity we see around us is the result of this massive explosion.\n\n"The new finding hit the scientific world like a thunderclap." It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. Science itself now indicated that the universe burst into existence at a particular time in the remote past.\n\nIn 1992 measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope seemed to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."\n\nWorking backwards, the evidence implies that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. The evidence from general relativity also indicates that it was not merely a case of the matter in the universe being concentrated at a particular location, but that space itself was this tiny. At a sudden instant in time all of the energy and mass in the universe was located at this infinitesimally small point and exploded. The currently observed outbound motion of the galaxies from each other is a continuing effect of that explosion.\n\n"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.\n\nHowever, some die-hard secularists propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansions and collapses. Hence, eternity becomes nothing more than an eternal succession of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs followed by big crunches over and over again and again forever.\n\nBut this violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, that implies that the universe is in a process of gradual disintegration - running down, like a wound-up clock. And if it is running down, then there must have been a time when it was wound up. Once the big bang takes place and the universe begins its expansion, entropy starts to increase. From this point on it will never be able to go
377911
:]\nsince I believe there is a creation I believe in intelligent design\n\nI didn't know of the museum but am interested.
552488
The probability of spontaneous evolution of any complex organism is statistically about the same as the probability of a watch factory exploding and the various watch parts landing on the ground as a perfectly constructed timepiece.\n\nWhile there may be some micro-evolution, human beings are definitely intelligently designed.  Thus, it is more likely than not that God created humans.
677385
Creationist stories were written to explain what could no be explained by science, specifically, where we came from.  Science has since explained this with the theory of evolution.  Evolution is what really happened; creationism was simply created to fill the holes until we figured it out.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, bu
886109
No. I say you are exactly right. There's no science in intelligent design. So it can't be a scientific theory. Sorry ID believers - there's just no process of discovery in your belief.