Results for: Intelligent-design

1,819 Contributions

Answered

What are the main ideas in intelligent design?

The idea is basically three-fold. 1. If evolution operates by Natural Selection then Natural Selection must account for everything (everything it claims to account for at lea… (MORE)

1 person found this useful

Kevn73

168 Contributions

Answered

In Famous People

Does Stephen Hawking believe in Intelligent Design?

Based on his writings, Stephen Hawking would not be described as believing in Intelligent Design.

7 people found this useful

Answered

In Uncategorized

What is better the you phone 5c or 5s?

the 5s because it has better service but it dosent have diffrent colrs just silver gold and black

38 people found this useful

A greywood 12 dec

2,695 Contributions

Answered

In Famous People

What is Intelligent Design Who founded it and What are its goals?

William Paley, of the 18th century, propounded the following; What if someone were to find a watch in a forest? A watch is complex and apparently tuned to fulfil a function; t…hat of telling time. Paley extended the idea of complexity to living organisms and how functionally-fulfilling he presumed their complex structures to be. He claimed that a designer was obvious in the case of the watch and, due to such complexity in living organisms, a designer should be necessary for them as well. This designer became known as the 'intelligent designer' in the idea called Intelligent Design. The idea is that living organisms are too complex to have arisen in any form other than their present one, the one that fulfills the present function that organism and all its organs fulfill. Later, the Theory of Evolution, generated by Charles Darwin, disposed greatly of any Intelligent Design notions. But there was still creationism, the age-old explanation of life's structure and diversity that preceeded both the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Many creationists have always been negative of evolution and have tried to force creationism upon school curricula to remove evolution from classrooms. When creationism made no effect, 'creation science' was introduced as a 'more scientific' way to combat evolution in the classroom. Intelligent Design these days has morphed from Paley's apparently earnest and innocent suggestion of 'complexity requires design' to a great attack on evolution. Michael Behe found backing for Intelligent Design, saying that biochemical pathways were too complex to go designerless. (He particularly pointed to the immune system.) Intelligent Design is now the replacement of 'creation science' since that didn't take off in school curricula. It insinuates that it is a 'scientific' creation-like argument. To gain approval, Intelligent Design denies any religiousness, denies the 'Intelligent Designer' is God or any god in any way. It also claims the 'Intelligent Designer' to be 'undetectable' and presumably supernatural. Intelligent Design is in fact, not only a curriculum-pushing 'theory', but a political movement, instigating the 2005 Dover district court cases. The explicit goal seems to be to extirpate evolution from schools. One wonders if Intelligent Design advocates want to expurgate the Theory of Evolution from science and society altogether. Perhaps many do. Intelligent Design shows the same disapproval to evolution that creationism and 'creation science' do. The judge of the 2005 court cases did identify a religious life-force behind the Intelligent Design advocates within the court case. Intelligent Design is simply creationism in disguise. Notice that at no point along the way has anyone evaluated Intelligent Design and certainly not the proponents themselves to see if it stands up to evolution. The Theory of Evolution is still as robust as ever. (MORE)

Itchie.c2

7,736 Contributions

Answered

In Famous People

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design is basically the opposite of evolution. It says that all life was designed by an "intelligent agent" and did not evolve. It has been widely disregarded as p…seudoscience by the scientific community because it makes untestable claims, although it is readily accepted by the religious community. It is synonymous with creationism. AnswerIntelligent design is the premise that all things were created by a superior intelligence. It is a natural rebuttal to atheism (there is no god) and evolutionism, and asserts that a superior being created all things. Actually, this concept has been around since long before Darwin. Most ancient societies believed in a creator deity. Great scientists throughout history have believed in a superior creator: Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) has been called "the father of intelligent design." William Paley's pocket watch analogy in 1802 said that if you find a pocket watch in a field, you assume it was made by an intelligent being, not that it developed out of natural forces without design. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species published in 1859, proposed that natural selection, coupled with small mutations over many years explained the development of various species. Even so, Darwin was influenced by Paley and wrote: "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species." Later, after the death of his daughter, Darwin had doubts about God, and described himself as an agnostic. Albert Einstein, in his book The World As I See It, stated that the harmony of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." In a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, Einstein wrote "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601 The modern ID movement began with a textbook called Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean H. Keaton, published in 1989. Questions about the development of the concept exist. Some believe it was formulated to restore creationism to education without contesting the separation of church and state issues. Today's ID proponents believe that natural selection is insufficient to explain the development of such complex systems as those that are present in our animal and plant life. They disagree with what evolutionists call their evidence, noting that there are no intermediate stages for such complex organs as the eye. Darwin himself pointed out "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Each slight modification would have to have some benefit to the animal or plant to enhance its chances of survival, in order for natural selection to work. ID differs from Creationism in several key aspects. ID scientists believe that the earth is much older than 6000 years. They do not assign a specific name to the intelligence that they believe designed the universe. Creationists believe in a god; ID scientists may or may not. Their goals are to study the origin of animal and plant life without what they see as the assumption that the development had to occur without outside influence. AnswerIt is an attempt at providing a supernatural rationale that denies evolution. AnswerIntelligent design is a name applied to a line of thinking that proposes that there are biological structures that are best explained as the result of an "intelligent designer" and not as a result of evolution (natural selection). The basis of the idea is that there are biological structures extant that have no known precursors in nature, and, therefore, could not have arisen as a result of evolution, but could only have been "created whole" by an intelligent designer. This theory (and note that it is not a scientific theory) is being touted by supporters (like the Discovery Institute) as an alternative to natural selection, and, as such, should be taught in the public school science curriculum. It is, in fact, a political tool designed to end run the constraints of the Constitution as regards the separation of church and state. Intelligent design is unmistakably rooted in theology, and scientists and scientific organizations almost uniformly regard it is pseudoscience. Many organizations condemn it in the strongest possible terms. In the First Amendment we find the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, the "religion clauses" of the Constitution. They prohibit the Government from establishing a national religion or of supporting one set of religious beliefs over another. And because intelligent design was shown to be an extension of theological ideas, and was also demonstrated to lack any scientific merit, it may not be taught in any public school curriculum. The decision by the U.S. District Court in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District was a clear indictment of both intelligent design and of those who attempted to force it upon the science teachers in Pennsylvania's Dover Area schools. Intelligent design is yet another tool used in the wedge strategy in an attempt to sway public opinion and "change the moral fabric" of society. The "scientific research" conducted by supporters has (not surprisingly) fallen short of the mark, and it has been rejected for inclusion in mainstream scientific publications. Yet the supporters persist, though much of their rhetoric is aimed at merely tearing down scientific ideas rather than presenting anything substantial as an alternative. And many scientists have made the mistake of just turning their backs on intelligent design and its supporters. The idea of avoiding giving any credibility to a "bad idea" by refusing to engage or debate it is a good one. But not in this case. When the zealots supporting intelligent design are attempting to tear down good science with bad criticism, science is obliged to defend itself by the sternest means. Science should not stand quietly by and be villainized for "denying God" or any other such nonsense. Science is not in the business of attempting to prove that God does not exist; science is not the enemy of religion. But if religion wants to fight science on scientific grounds, it will have to do a lot better than what the Discovery Institute is doing with its intelligent design. A whole lot better. Only science can disprove science. Nonscience or pseudoscience cannot. (MORE)

1 person found this useful

Patwoods

17,319 Contributions

Answered

In Famous People

Is a rainbow an example of an intelligent design?

A rainbow is an example of refracted light, caused by refraction and dispersal of sunlight through water droplets in the air. Look at a glass or crystal prism; you'll see… the same effect. Was that prism an example of intelligent design? We know the answer to that because we know somebody deliberately manufactured it. We cannot know about the rainbow. Whether the rainbow was designed by a higher intelligence is impossible to tell; that is a matter of personal belief. However a rainbow happens, it is still a thing of beauty and we should be grateful for such beauty in our lives. Maybe we don't actually need to stress over whether someone or something deliberately made it happen, but just enjoy. After all, do we question the existence of tiny kittens and little fluffy puppies? And would the decision to take one into our home be influenced by whether the little one was designed or just happened? Regarding Perception of Rainbows It may indeed be debatable if rainbows are evidence of design. What is more intriguing is the fact that we can perceive a rainbow as beautiful at all. This would appear to have no evolutionary advantage. The fact that we see the beautiful colors, have discovered its physical properties, according to the laws of physics does not explain why we judge it to be beautiful. The human brain is said to be an extremely complex organ. That is something which some would point to as evidence of intelligent design - not the rainbow itself but the brain and the perception of it. Regarding the brain If the brain is an example of intelligent design, then so must the rainbow be. All brains of all creatures are extremely complex; complexity doesn't necessarily suggest intelligent design any more than lack of complexity suggests a thing "just happened". I do understand many people prefer to believe nothing "just happened", but we'll never truly know, will we? To make a fuss over the origin of brains and rainbows is to detract from their great beauty in our perception. Comment There is a quantum leap in complexity from a rainbow to the human brain. One is also a living biological system and the other is molecules of water suspended in the air (or very fine water droplets -however one wishes to define it). Thus they are two completely different things. While animal brains are indeed complex, as far as we know animals don't wonder about rainbows as we humans do. There are significant differences between the brain of even the most 'advanced' animal brain and the human brain. In any case I was trying to point out that while the rainbow itself is probably not evidence of Intelligent Design, the human brain which perceives it and discusses it may well be. ____________________ The question isn't to do with our perception (or our dog's perception) of a rainbow. It asks whether the rainbow is an example of intelligent design. Not being a theologian, I can't claim expertise on that subject but understand it's a new way of saying 'creationism' for those who have trouble with the concept the universe and its inhabitants and attributes simply evolved in ways that worked, but now consider the term 'creationism' a bit fundamentalist, or possibly just old-fashioned. If the Earth - and the universe - are examples of intelligent design, or 'created', then rainbows, humans, animals, trees, rocks, clouds and orchids and so on were all intelligently created. If not, they evolved, in one way or another. You can't have it all ways. If God or something very like God created everything we can't say, but God only really created humans; the rest just kind of happened, rocks, rainbows and all. So the answer is, if there was - or is - intelligent design involved (is it ongoing?), a rainbow is indeed an example of this. But, a rainbow is no less beautiful whether we believe an entity deliberately created it, and the brain with which we perceive it, or whether we simply accept it as the gift it is. However it got up there. (MORE)

Amaunet

66 Contributions

Answered

In Synonyms and Antonyms

What is one-word synonym for intelligent design?

Many people believe that creationism is a one word synonym for intelligent design. Though this is not true, I hope it may be the answer you are looking for.

LubaP

4,249 Contributions

Answered

In Science

What are arguments for Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligent design puts forth the in…tricacy of the bacteria flagellum & the finely tuned universe, as evidence for an intelligent designer. 1: The argument for the bacteria flagellum goes something like this: 'The bacteria flagellum is extremely intricate and works like a designed machine. If you were to remove any of the parts, it ceases to function completely, therefore God did it.' Rebuttal: Dr. Ken Miller removed not only one part, but 40 parts, and was still left with a bacteria that functioned. End of story. 2: The argument for the finely tuned universe goes something like this: (a) 'The universe is so finely tuned that the odds of it being the way it is, are almost improbable, therefore God did it. (b) And if any of the known laws/constants were to be wiped out, life as we know it would not exist. Therefore, the universe is finely tuned for life, therefore God did it.' Rebuttal (a): The chances of the universe being the way it is 1 in 1 (100%), because it already happened. Thus assessing the improbability of such event is simply pointless. People who make these sort of arguments aren't familiar with 'Statistical Thermodynamics.' Any configuration is almost infinitely improbable, but no matter how improbable, it still must exist in a state.Rebuttal (b):The "finely tuned for life" argument: Ignoring the fact that 99% of the universe would kill life instantly... let's pick a random example: There are more black holes in the universe than there are people, so with the intelligent design logic, we can conclude that the universe was fine-tuned for black holes. Intelligent design summary: This looks complicated, therefore God did it. This is why real scientists don't take intelligent design seriously. Arguments in favour of Intelligent Design are offered by religiously biased persons (including scientists, like Michael Behe). Proponents of Intelligent Design offer arguments to discredit the Theory of Evolution. There are often no arguments in favour of Intelligent Design in this case. It seems assumed by the Intelligent Design proponents that by dismantling Darwinism, the automatic truth would then have to be Design. There are no arguments for Intelligent Design offered by scientists who are not religiously biased. These scientists realise and accept that Evolution is a magnificent theory with very much evidence to show its veracity. Thus they continue to explore Evolution as the explanation for all of life's diversity. Аnother answer: We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers, then withers and dies.Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; its nonbeing is a real possibility.Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.Then right now nothing would exist. ForIf the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed literally nothing at all. ButFrom nothing nothing comes. SoThe universe could not have begun.But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built in possibility not to be. ButIf in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. SoThere must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.This absolutely necessary being is God. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the was these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist displays an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. For example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or intelligent design. Not chance. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design. Design comes from only a mind, a designer. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent designer. Rebuttal: This argument is not scientific, but religious/philosophical. As you can see in the examples given previously, all the "scientific" explanations provided by creationists/intelligent design supporters (and the two groups are one and the same) do not hold up scientifically. Intelligent design organizations do not do research, and do not practice actual science. This is a purely religious explanation, and not based on science or research . Intelligent design claims that the universe is well ordered, everything in its place and ideally designed. The banana was designed to fit in the human hand, for instance. Science shows us that there is much redundancy, nonsense and many mistakes in nature, our world and in ourselves. Our genetic code contains much DNA that codes for nothing, as well as for cancers and disease. Our own bodies have major design flaws that can best be understood as adaptations, over time, of structures for new uses to which they are not entirely suited. So either the universe was not designed, or the designer was not a very good one. (MORE)

Anand Mehta

252,404 Contributions

Statistician / Economist formerly employed in various Government Departments in the UK, freelance mathematics and statistics tutor since retiring in 2008, Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.

Answered

In Math and Arithmetic

What is the answer to 20c plus 5 equals 5c plus 65?

20c + 5 = 5c + 65 Divide through by 5: 4c + 1 = c + 13 Subtract c from both sides: 3c + 1 = 13 Subtract 1 from both sides: 3c = 12 Divide both sides by 3: c = 4

Bob de Wit

76 Contributions

Answered

In Religion & Spirituality

How is intelligent design different from creationism?

Intelligent Design is a line of subjective argumentation within creationism, which generally implies the following flow of deduction: 1. The universe is complex … (MORE)