0
== == There is no evidence for intelligent design. Nor are there any current facts to 'prove' or falsify it. Since there are none so far, no more can be found. Also, a slight technicality; nothing can be proven exactly, just endless predictions can be confirmed (in a correct theory) by observation. No observations or predictions exist in Intelligent Design, so it is not scientific and would not be 'provable' or refutable.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoThis Question implies that scientific facts are already known, which prove intelligent design. This is not the case. Even Michael J. Behe, a scientist and advocate of intelligent design, says that design is difficult to prove (Darwin's Black Box).
No scientific facts have yet been found to prove intelligent design.
For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoNeither Evolution nor Creation can be conclusively proven. Evidence can be placed in front of the reader, who then chooses how to interpret it. For some examples of phenomena that may be seen as supporting Intelligent Design, see the attached Related Links - God's wisdom seen in His creations
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which Public schools teach intelligent design?
Public schools in the United States are not permitted to teach intelligent design as a scientific theory in science classes due to the separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Teaching intelligent design as part of a science curriculum has been legally challenged in several court cases, with rulings consistently upholding the separation of church and state. Some private or religious schools may include intelligent design in their curriculum.
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 does the church think about intelligent design?
The Catholic Church has repeatedly criticized Intelligent Design, saying it is not science. In fact, the Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion. The Church also believes the Intelligent Design is built off of faulty premises and often deny the accuracy of Darwin-esque beliefs.
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.
What is the adaptation of atis?
the proving fact of things
A scientific theory is a fact?
Scientific theory is the accepted explanation of the phenomenon. It is a proven fact to the experiment condition However, the theory can be use for prediction of various further scenario that might be out of reach for proving it. Scientific theory may become invalid at some condition unknown to the current science. It is generally hold as fact until any invalid condition is found.This limitation is commonly abused by pseudoscientist and religious cults claiming that science is not everything so they could continue on their nonsense claim and explanation, which, mostly doesn't pass any falsification mechanism. For example, many creationist would stated evolution or abiogenesis is only a theory not a fact, which is correct but Intelligent Design (ID) is neither being proven fact nor had been recognized as a valid scientific theory.Technically, scientific theory is not a proven fact but it was something that had been proven again and again with no fail until now.
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.
Are statistics a good method of proving a fact?
mjiiuu mjiiuu
What is a scientific fact called?
a scientific fact is called data.
Is there any scientific proof about the existence of karma relationships?
No, but science is just a way of quantifying and structuring information in a useful format. So, just because there is no scientific proof, does not mean that it does not exist. In fact, science contradicts itself, by simultaneously proving that there both is and isn't a god. Hope this helps!
What is meant by the term proving?
Proving means evaluating the truth of a statement or the quality of an item through testing it. When a statement is proven with evidence, it is taken as a fact.
Is a rhombus always sometimes or never a parallelogram?
Always. In fact, one method of proving a quadrilateral a rhombus is by first proving it a parallelogram, and then proving two consecutive sides congruent, diagonals bisecting verticies, etc.
