0
No. Intelligent Design is not a viable theory since it does not explain all of the steps nor provide any evidence to substantiate its claims. As a result, the Theory of Evolution remains unchallenged by it.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is there a credible scientific theory that opposes evolution?
The argument against the theory of evolution is Creation ex-nihilo ['out of nothing'] by God, sometimes called the Intelligent Design, or ID, theory. = =
What are the evidence presented in court for Charles Darwin theory of intelligent design?
Not sure how to answer this as scientific theories are not subject to the law but are supported by overwhelming evidence. The only time that evolution or the theory that supports it is in a court of law is when some public school somewhere, or some state somewhere tries to introduce religion into the classroom disguised inder the terms creation " science : or intelligent design.There is no theory of evolution put forward by Charles Darwin that includes intelligent design. If fact the theory of evolution by natural selection is the antithesis of intelligent design.
Is evolution pseudoscience?
No, evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact, The theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains much about evolution, is well supported by myriad lines of converging evidence, is internally consistent, explains the natural phenomenon it should and makes testable predictions. All science. On the other hand, creationism and intelligent design are both pseudoscience. Go here for the truth, talkorigins.org
Are intelligent design and evolution scientific theories?
AnswerIntelligent design is not a scientific theory and evolution is. Explanations for questions about our world and everything in it are formed by using the scientific method. First, a scientist would come up with an explanation to an observed reoccurring pattern in nature, this is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by gathering more data and seeing if the data is supports or falsifies the explanation. If enough data is gathered, the hypothesis can be considered true and it becomes a theory. But even a theory is still subject to being falsified if enough data is found to prove it wrong (falsify). The theory of evolution is supported by data which was collected through observation of patterns and other events in nature. Some people don't like the idea that evolution is talked about in schools, because it contradicts many religious ideas (example: humans are not animals or related to them, the structure of organisms cannot change/evolve to be different and better because they were made perfect in the first place, etc.). So intelligent design was formed; and by calling it 'scientific,' some people thought they could put it in schools without violating the law that religion is not to be taught in schools. Intelligent design is not a theory because it has no data supporting it and there is no data to falsify it. So intelligent design is not a scientific idea, it is more like wishful thinking. AnswerEvolution is a theory that, in very general terms, states that today's species evolved by a process of replication and mutation with natural selection over a long time period from simpler life forms. This is accepted by mainstream scientists as the most likely explanation for our current species. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, the theory of Evolution has been significantly refined by more modern discoveries in science, in particular the field of genetics and cellular biology, so the current theory of evolution is often referred to as the 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis' reflecting the way it has incorporated these new discoveries. Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that the universe and life forms we see today are best explained by design of an intelligent cause; Some ID proponents do not rule out adaptations of species, but they do not believe the addition of new complex information could have happened naturally. In other words, they believe natural variation within species is possible, but not new species. Both are trying to explain how the world works. Both claim to search for truth. Proponents of each believe they have proposed a theory.Within science a theory is generally defined as a systematic framework that explains observations and experimental results, and which can be used to make testable predictions which in turn can either be used to refine or falsify the theory. Generally speaking scientists will attempt to test new theories by designing experiments that, if successful, will falsify the theory. All scientific theories and results are considered tentative and subject to revision or refutation as more evidence is gathered.Scientific explanations for questions about our world and everything in it are formed by using the scientific method. First, a scientist would come up with an explanation to an observed reoccurring pattern in nature, this is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by gathering more data by observation and experimentation to see if the data supports or falsifies the explanation. If enough data is gathered, the hypothesis can be considered to have been validated and it becomes a theory. But even a theory is still subject to being falsified if enough data is found to prove it wrong. Scientists must publish the results of their experiments, and explain their hypotheses and theories in scientific journals so that other scientists are able to understand their work. It is also important for experiments and theories to be explained in a way that allows other scientists to reproduce the experiments or devise new ones that can either support or falsify the theory. When scientists try to publish their experiments the work must first be peer-reviewed. This is a process where the work they want to be published is reviewed by a selection of other experts in the field (peers) before it is accepted for publication.The theory of evolution is supported by data which was collected through observation of a wide variety of natural systems and through laboratory experimentation. Most palaeontologists consider the fossil record to provide evidence completely consistent with the theory of evolution and geneticists also consider evidence from the study of genes to also be consistent with evolution. These two separate strands of evidence are also consistent with each other and have been used to successfully make predictions.Scientists would further argue that Intelligent Design is not a theory because it has no data supporting it and there is no possible way to falsify it. Intelligent Design supporters argue that the evidence to support them is in the inability of current scientific theories to explain how certain features in biological systems came about naturally and that it is impossible for these features to occur naturally so they must therefore be the result of Intelligent Design. Many scientists consider this argument to be invalid and little more than an attempt to insert God, or an Intelligent Designer, into any current gaps in scientific understanding. This is often referred to as the 'God of the gaps' argument. Although the progress of scientific research can constantly fill these gaps in our knowledge this aspect of the Intelligent Design hypothesis could never be falsified because it can always be reapplied where there are still gaps in our understanding.Some Intelligent design proponents argue that Evolutionary theory is a psuedoscience which lacks any significant empirical evidence to support it whilst others have chosen to argue that Intelligent Design should be taught as a valid alternative to Evolution within science education. Opponents of Intelligent Design argue that it is unsupported by evidence whereas, in their view, the evidence to support Evolution is overwhelming.The majority of the scientific community have so far rejected Intelligent design as unscientific, amounting to little more than an untested (and some would argue un-testable) hypothesis that has produced no experimental evidence. It should be noted that accepted theories in science can and are overturned when experimental results are published that successfully falsify the prevailing theory.Evolutionary theory is often criticised for failing to explain the origins of biological life, and that it is a theory that excludes the possibility of a supernatural god, and as such is atheistic in nature. In reality Evolution is explicitly not a theory concerning the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. It assumes the existence of life and is concerned with explaining how these living systems change through successive generations, developing new traits and ultimately creating new species, or as Charles Darwin put it 'the Origin of Species'.The theory of Evolution within modern science does not explicitly exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer, either as the designer of the first living matter, or of the universe as a whole. Because science is a discipline that attempts to explain observed facts in terms of measurable physical reality it does not allow supernatural entities as part of its explanations or theories because they are incompatible with the scientific method, even if they actually exist. Many scientists have supernatural or religious beliefs but they do not rely on them when using scientific methods to understand the world. Some evolutionary scientists believe in a form of supernatural origin or intelligent design to the universe and that the mechanism of evolution was designed to do precisely what scientists observe it to do.Each of these proposed theories starts with presuppositions. Evolutionary Theory and other scientific theories begin by assuming that everything we can observe and measure can be explained in terms of natural processes. ID assumes that supernatural design is possible and that its effects can be observed. ID scientists do not challenge the idea of change over time in organisms -just that the addition of certain complex biological information proposed by evolution is impossible without the intervention of an intelligent designer.AnswerEvolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is not. Evolution, at least as it is presented in modern evolutionary synthesis, is fact, and is presented as such. Intelligent design is a religiously spawned doctrine that has social and political aims or goals as its objectives. Supporters of intelligent design present the oddest assortment of ideas as regards scientific support for accepting intelligent design as something scientific. The major scientific organizations around the globe uniformly and categorically reject it as unscientific.
What was Einstein's theory on evolution?
He's not known for a theory of evolution. Darwin is.
Is there a credible scientific theory that opposes evolution?
The argument against the theory of evolution is Creation ex-nihilo ['out of nothing'] by God, sometimes called the Intelligent Design, or ID, theory. = =
What are the evidence presented in court for Charles Darwin theory of intelligent design?
Not sure how to answer this as scientific theories are not subject to the law but are supported by overwhelming evidence. The only time that evolution or the theory that supports it is in a court of law is when some public school somewhere, or some state somewhere tries to introduce religion into the classroom disguised inder the terms creation " science : or intelligent design.There is no theory of evolution put forward by Charles Darwin that includes intelligent design. If fact the theory of evolution by natural selection is the antithesis of intelligent design.
What was the last scientific theory to challenge the theory of evolution?
No scientific theory ever challenged the theory of evolution.
What are the alternatives of evolution?
There are no scientific theories in competition for the theory of evolution - it is the only credible theory that explains the origin and diversity of the earth's species. . The primary alternate assertion to evolution, especially in the USA, is Creationalism, of which Intelligent Design is one example. Creationalism argues that all living things are the product of a god or an intelligent creator.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in intelligent design or in Darwin's theory of evolution?
According to their Watchtower web site:Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible.So they absolutely reject Evolution as defined by the theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self-replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures, with man being the most intelligent of its productions.As far as intelligent design is concerned, they also suggest that it does not go far enough. Intelligent Design only theorizes that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Jehovah's Witnesses state unequivocally that specifically God created everything, not just some vague "intelligent entity." In that respect, their beliefs are compatible with intelligent design but intelligent design does not go far enough.
What does the church think of intelligent design?
A few years ago, some members of the creationism movement adopted the name 'intelligent design' in an attempt to persuade the United States courts that not only was creationism science but that its advocates were neutral as to who the 'intelligent designer' was. Some creationists, who would otherwise be supportive of the Intelligent Design movement, are bitterly opposed to Intelligent Design because they resist any hypothesis that does not clearly and unambiguously put God at the centre of creation.Among the churches, there are different views on this so-called Intelligent Design. For example:In the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design", instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science. The position of the Catholic Church is in favour of the Theory of Evolution, not the obviously artificial construct of Intelligent Design.The Episcopal Church has said that the theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith." This leaves no room for Intelligent Design.For more information on the background of the Intelligent Design movement, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
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; that 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.
What do creationists believe as an alternative to evolution?
Basically, ' magic man ' done it. Even their much vaunted intelligent design theory has religious connotations as the evidence shows. Speaking of evidence; they have not one scintilla of that.
What is atheistic intelligent design?
atheistic intelligent design is the theory that everything has been designed, but the creator is not God or a supernatural entity. John Gribbin is an atheistic intelligent design proponent and he concludes human beings are infact the creators of the universe, he calls his theory the "designer multiverse theory" it is a type of atheistic intelligent design. Other atheistic intelligent design proponents include some Buddhists and idealist philosophers who conclude every object in the universe is created from the mind of humans but objects do not exist when nobody is looking at them, what keeps them in existence is experience, Ernst Mach was an atheist who supported this, he called his theory phenomenalism the theory concludes there are no mind independent objects, only sensations are real.
Does the current pope believe in evolution?
I am uncertain of what the current pope specifically "believes" regarding the current Theory of Evolution, but what I can say is that the Theory of Evolution poses no challenge to the Catholic Faith. I can say that the current pope, whatever he personally believes regarding the Theory of Evolution would say that the current theory of evolution poses no challenge to the Catholic Faith. Because the Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Claim, and not a theological claim, the Church cannot make a judgment as to the truth or falsity of the Theory. Matters pertaining to Science are outside the purview of the judgment of the Church, because the Church was not established to discover Scientific Truth.
What is Intelligent Falling?
Intelligent Falling is a parody of Intelligent Design. It says that gravity is not a mindless, natural force, but things fall because they are controlled by an intelligent, supernatural being. It's a joke so there is no actual theory of intelligent falling. It is meant to mock intelligent design, which is the belief that life was designed by an intelligent supernatural being.
What do anti-evolutionists creationists and intelligent design advocates really know of evolution?
From there pamphlets and " text " books it would seem very little is known by these people. The basics, such as evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution by natural selection explains much of this fact, seems to elude many of them. Look to the intelligent design people. Not one scintilla of positive evidence can they cite, yet they want their nonsense, not scientifically validated, to be taught in science class. A cheat and a end run around the scientific process.
