What do you think of Intelligent Design?

Answer 1

As a Christian, I have to make a distinction between 'Intelligent Design' and Creationism. They are not the same thing.

The term 'Creationism' can most appropriately be applied to the belief that Genesis 1 and 2 (the stories of Creation in The Bible) are literally true, and that God made the earth and everything else in six periods of 24 hours (days) just a few thousand years ago. However, speaking as a Christian, sadly it is my strong opinion that Creationists have done more harm than good in their belief - simply because their position is indefensible, and labels all Christians as crackpots who belief in nonsense, which, of course, is itself nonsense.

Creationism is wrong on two accounts. First, the overwhelming evidence amassed during the last few hundred years, points to an evolutionary development of life on this planet, and a universe that is many billions of years old. So-called 'evidence' from Creationists who try to fly in the face of these facts is easily refuted by anyone with a rudimentary science education. Second, Genesis is not, has not been and never has been, from the time it was written, a description of the scientific events surrounding the beginning of the universe. It is a profound allegorical poem, that was written by the Jews, to explain why the universe was created and not how. Throughout the history of the Church, most Christians and Church leaders knew this, but it was only as a result of the 'Enlightenment' and the rise of Darwinism that some members of the Church lashed out in defence of scripture, thus starting the Creationist movement. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Biblical Hebrew will see for themselves the poetic nature of Genesis. And, like the best of poems, despite its containing great truths, it is still a poem, and not to be taken literally. As for Jesus, throughout his life and teaching, he had absolutely nothing to say about Genesis, nor Adam, nor Eve. Even Paul, who mentions Adam just a couple of times, does so allegorically. But those who insist that Creationism has to be believed if one is to be a 'real' Christian, may well look at their own belief - and ask whether they worship God, in Jesus Christ, or words in a book.

That said, there is much evidence, however, for 'Intelligent design'. Scientists know categorically that the universe is a logical place that works like clockwork. We know that the many parameters of the universe are linked mathematically with every other. For example, The energy contained in an object = the mass of the object times the speed of light squared. We know that the force of gravity between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses, but inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Rather than a universe being random, it is a well-ordered, logical place that bears all the appearances of design.

But of course, that evidence may well be an illusion. However, in recent years a new scientific study called the Anthropic Principle has made a marked effect on the attitudes of many scientists towards the cosmos. The Anthropic Principle suggests that the many hundreds of basic constants within the universe (eg the Gravitational Constant, Boltzmann's constant, Planck's constant, mass to charge ratio on an electron etc) are fine tuned in order that life can evolve and thrive, and the tiniest fluctuation from any one of these constants would mean a universe that would not be able to support life of any sort.

As an example, if the Gravitational constant was approximately 0.2% more than its value, stars would burn out too quickly for life to evolve. If it was 0.2% less, then stars would not form, or, if they did, they would be too cool to support life or to become supernovae, spewing out heavier elements into the cosmos. One such constant meeting these demanding criteria is nothing special, two might be thought coincidence, but coincidence or chance cannot really be considered seriously of one considers the many hundreds of parameters and fundamental constants miraculously hitting the mark exactly. There are some scientists who suggest that we live in one of an infinite number of 'multiple universes' and this one just happens to be 'right' for life as we are, of course, here. However, this cannot be deemed a scientific approach, as we are trapped in 'this' universe, and therefore the theory cannot be tested at all, and therefore cannot be called scientific, but is just hypothetical speculation with no real evidential basis.

So, in conclusion, Intelligent Design within the universe seems very likely. And, if there is design, then presumably there must be a Designer. However, do not confuse Intelligent Design with the myth of Creationism. They are not the same thing.

Answer 2

The proponents of Intelligent Design need to improve their concept if they want it to be considered a genuine alternative to science. Although Intelligent Design is an improvement on earlier designs put forward, it is still too obviously a topic of religion and is still too obviosuly based on flawed and incomplete interpretations of the scientific evidence.

Advocates of creationism have long sought to have creationism taught alongside evolution in U.S. schools. This was blocked by the courts because creationism was seen as a religious topic, not science. In an attempt to persuade the courts otherwise, the movement adopted the name 'creation science' so that this would now been seen as science. However, the courts were unmoved and continued to block the teaching of creation science as other than a religious topic. Following this defeat, some members of the creationism movement adopted the name 'Intelligent Design' in an attempt to persuade the courts that not only was it science but its advocates were neutral as to who the 'intelligent designer' was. At this stage, the U.S. courts have blocked this as well.

In 1999, the 'Wedge Document' prepared by the creationist Discovery Institute was leaked to the internet and displayed on two websites. After initially denying it, the Institute confirmed the document's authenticity. The document begins by stating, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." It goes on to say that the Institute seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies, with a governing goal to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. The achievement of these goals is to be facilitated by including Creation Science or Intelligent Design hypotheses in the school curriculum.

The Wedge Document is evidence that what is at issue is not arriving at the truth, but rather that a narrow political and religious agenda be taught to our children. This is no more acceptable today than it was ten or twenty years ago.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 3

I think it a much better idea of science than Darwinian Evolution. It points to a 'Master Designer' and not happenstance or pure luck. It has a definite beginning and not a basic element(s) just popping into the 'picture.' I believe DNA findings will eventually devolve the Evolution train, along with more scientific discoveries in the universe and geology.

Answer 4

The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).
See also:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

More detailed evidence of Creation

The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."

"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.

See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy

e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation