Creation

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 intricacy 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:

1. 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.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; its nonbeing is a real possibility.
3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed literally nothing at all. But
6. From nothing nothing comes. So
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. 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. But
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Evidence of evolution began to be recognised as far back as the eighteenth century, but naturists could not yet identify an explanation for this evidence. Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet (1744-1829) was an early advocate of evolution and believed that it proceeded in accordance with natural laws.

Thus Charles Darwin (1809-1892) was not the first to study evolution, but he was the first to recognise the role of natural selection in evolution. He had studied medicine, before dropping out and studying taxidermy, then natural history. His father enrolled Charles to study theology, hoping he would become a clergyman. Charles Darwin developed the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection after observing the evidence for evolution during his voyage in HMS Beagle. The captain of the Beagle was already aware of evolutionary theories that were already beginning to shock Christian believers in Europe, and had hoped that by having a naturalist on board he might obtain geological evidence to refute the them. During the voyage, from 1831 to 1836, Darwin travelled hundreds of miles inland, from country to country, trying to interpret the fauna, flora and geological formations. He then spent a further twenty years gathering and investigating evidence before publishing his conclusions.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says that species evolved over time in response to changes in the natural environment, and is seen by scientists as the best explanation for the facts. Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871.

The English naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace also invented the theory of natural selection, independent of Charles Darwin. However, he believed that natural selection did not apply to humans, because our evolution was divinely guided. In the years since, paleoanthropologists have found ample evidence that human evolution did occur as the result of natural selection, just as the evolution of all other species did.

There are many arguments against evolution. These are often propounded by people of a number of religions, proponents of the pretending-to-be-unreligious Intelligent Design movement, people who do not understand evolution and have not been properly taught about it and, no doubt, people who pick up arguments against evolution from people who give them the idea that evolution is something to be against and the anti-evolution arguments themselves have scientific merit.

Evolution is a theory. Richard Dawkins wants to call it a fact. It is a fact. Dawkins proposes the word theorum for evolution. I like the phrase 'body of fact' or 'megafact' which is a word I now coin.

Evolution has much evidence to support it. But it is an origins-theory. It explains the origins of species. The realm of Bibles and religions came about before Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and seemed to claim originofspecies-explanation as its own. Origins-explanations are dear to people simply by being origins-explanations. They are even dearer if they are ruled by a beloved omnipotent omniphilic religious entity such as a god.

Thus the ungodguided appearance of evolution offended those who knew the godguided creation stories. Since then, offended people have been, offendedly, ejaculating many arguments against evolution. Some stray into the scientific as opposed to religious realm, perhaps since the offendeds first noticed sciences inability to build explanation and scientific theory out of supernaturalism.

Arguments against evolution include:

The Bible says that God created life, and separately (in six days).

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Life cannot evolve from 'pond-scum'.

There is not a single transitional form.

Earth is too young to support the theorised lengthy periods of evolution.

Evolution is 'just a theory'.

Evolution leads to atheism, immorality, suicide, misery..... Just look at atheists like Hitler.

Evolution is a religion as it must be 'believed' in.

To my knowledge, many religious people, fundamentalists who believe literally that everything was created in 6 days are so religious, so convicted that they won't even listen to scientists or even a more (to them) harmless passer-by who happens to have read something about evolution. They go near nothing that remotely challenges creationism or suggests a godlessness for the Universe.

They may be interested in science, but their knowledge can only be peripheral and basic as they (if they exclude evolution from consideration) often reject continental drift, old-earth geology (which is all of geology), abiogenesis, the existence of dinosaurs and other pre-Modern organisms and the big bang standard model of the origin of the Universe. Perhaps some even refuse to consider stellar processes such as nucleosynthesis. How can this lead to a full appreciation of what science has and can work out about the Universe. What sort of science-knowledge is this?

Richard Dawkins points out that denouncing of evolution may not come directly from thinking evolution is unlogical but from a moral-holding (god-ruled morals no doubt) opinion of 'ungodguidedness is immoral'. Still, science finds supernaturalism (as said above) untenable and so these offended fundamentalists, creationists or religionists have to attack evolution with science. All their anti-evolution arguments are untenable, useless and invalid. Is it their peripheral appreciation and knowledge of all of science that makes this so?

Below is an explanation of why all the arguments I listed above are invalid.

The Bible does say that God created all life. To a comparative religion studier, this would be referred to a creation myth. Science rejects God because he is undetectable and supernatural and needs faith to think he exists, possibly a concession that such an object does not exist on the part of the religious. Also, the lengthy time-periods of geology and the fossil record do not support a 6 day creation.

The violation of the second law of thermodynamics is not so. If biological processes that involved reproduction and growth and generation-progression violated this law then no organism would ever get beyond the zygote stage.

Humans did not evolve FROM today's apes, nor specifically from chimpanzees (closest relative to humans). Humans evolved WITH chimpanzees. Life evolves by common ancestry. There was a Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and further back in time a Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor and further back in time an Orangutan-Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Human common ancestor. Humans evolved from a single twig of the ape branch of the tree of life. Evolution does not proceed as a complete transformation of one species into another (like all chimpanzees suddenly becoming humans or giving birth to humans) leaving a disappearance of the 'parent' species behind.

'Pond-scum' or Kent Hovind's disparaging 'lightening on mud' or (with regards to the big bang) 'all the dirt in the Universe) are statements of absolute unscientificness. There is no such thing as scum or dirt in science. Science talks about elements and gives them names (such as oxygen and carbon and nitrogen and silicon). Life is formed from elements. Cells are formed from elements. Life can evolve once a nucleic acid is enclosed/delimited/contained in a membrane. That is all that needed to happen.

There are indeed transitional forms like Archaeopteryx. There are lineages alive today that give clues as to transitions, like hoatzins, platypuses, lungfish and coelocanths, hippopotamuses, Australopithecus and welwitschias (which give clues as to the origins of angiosperms).

Earth-age is a matter of geology. But evolution theory needs it since evolutionary processes take a long time. Earth is not 6000 years old as the Bible-literalists claim. Earth is 4 600 million years old. The uranium dating mechanism that was used to measure this is no doubt inaccurate by a few hundred million years. This is about 1% of the total magnitude of the age and is thus negligable. Earth is very very old. The way of measuring Earth as 6000 years old was done by examining ages of humans in the Old Testament. This presumes that humans have existed for the entireness of Earth's history. However to measure something's age it is better to measure the age of what that something is made of (rock in Earth's case). One cannot measure something peripheral (like human-age, humans just being on the surface). If measuring age were done like this, the age of a wad of cheese would be measured by the age of the mould growing on that cheese or a person's age would be measured by measuring the length of time they'd been wearing that morning's shirt.

The 'just a theory' argument shows lack of understanding of 'theory'. Theories are all-incorporating explanations that tie together many facts. Hypotheses are promoted to theories only when confirmed by convincing evidence. It is appropriate to say 'just a hypothesis' of something of course. And of course that would be inappropriate for evolution, which is a theory and not a hypothesis. Hypothesis is almost synonymous with guess. Theory is almost synonymous with fact.

Evolution suggests ungodguidedness perhaps. I admit that religion exists as a comfort for humans in a frightening universe. However, if evolution is the truth we must not shy away from it obviously. Then we have a true explanation of the biological world's diversity! To think there is a god is faith and so regardless of what science you accept god can still be imagined for comfort. To the thinking person and the common sensical person, atheism may well abound in their thoughts and knowledge of the universe anyway, regardless of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Is evolution depressing? Mindless mutations locked into existence nonrandomly by selection or eliminated? Look at the beauty of life's biodiversity. One must not fail in the imagination just because a process is mindless. Evolution has great power. Theodosius Dobzhansky said 'Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of evolution'. The 'Origin of Species' has the words 'Out of the war of Nature' and out of this emerges Darwin's evolved 'forms most beautiful'. There is constant action and colour and wonder in the world of life, of animals, plants, genetics, ecosystems and the beautiful biosphere as a whole. Why would anyone be sad about that. All life has a life-force just like you, selected by Natural Selection. Can all life appreciate life as much as we do?

Does evolution (as the Theory of Evolution) lead to Hitler-persons and their vicious killings of fellow humans? I'm sure many people will agree that Hitler was a horrible git (we could always be ruder and about Hitler is the place to be so) no matter how you slice it. Hitler's horribleness surely has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an innocent description of life-adaptation and change and diversification. If Hitler produced atrocities after having heard of evolution, it must be remembered that Hitler was horrible and ghastly no matter how you slice it. Maybe the Hitler argument is simply used by serious anti-evolutionists trying to incite moral outrage. Notice that it is not against the mechanisms of gene frequencies and mutation and Natural Selection and species diversification. It is just against a theory which says nothing of God and morality and Bible-said statements and thus regards it as immoral/ungodly.

Finally, evolution is not a religion. It is a science. When it is said 'Scientists BELIEVE that Earth is 4 600 million years old' or 'Scientists believe that endosymbiosis took place' or 'It is believed that all life has a common ancestor', that word BELIEVED means 'thought sensible and logical' and 'is thought a good account of what occurs in reality', 'is thought a good description of the world'. It is not religious at all as it is based on evidence and logic and common sense and knowledge and not faith.

All arguments against evolution arise from faith-based contempt for nonfaithful, nonreligious science-explanation. All of them are completely invalid.

Evolution remains a perfect fully-supported theory, which explains the origins and diversifications of 'Darwin's forms most beautiful', the beauty of life....

All the so-called rewards that I am aware of are offered by creationists, who have probably offerred amounts beyond their ability to pay - in one case, ten million lira. The fact that apparently enormous "rewards" are being offered only by people with strongly held views opposed to evolution demonstrates that this is a propaganda exercise, not a genuine quest for proof. What this also demonstrates is a belief that the public will believe anything if you appear to show confidence in your beliefs.
Take for example, the "reward" offered by Kent Hovind. The principal roadblock to claiming this reward is that you have to convince him and him alone of evolution, and he has already declared all scientific evidence to be false. He has not put any money in trust, nor appointed an independent panel of scientific experts to make the decision. So, it doesn't matter whether he has a quarter of a million pounds on offer: he is in the position of always declaring himself unconvinced.

If such reward had been offered by a science foundation on the basis of an independent arbitrator and fair rules, the reward would have been claimed long ago. The absence of rewards on offer from genuine science foundations, or even from uncommitted philanthropists eager to advance scientific inquiry, demonstrates the confidence that proof of evolution is no longer required.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation

Answer 1

There appear to be three different offers currently on the table from different people or groups.

1. Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind has an offer of $250,000 (allegedly for around 12 years) for proof of evolution.

2. Creationist Adnan Oktar of Turkey, reported on one site as a 'rival of Richard Dawkins' has an offer of 10 trillion lira $7.5 million dollars for fossil evidence of evolution.

3. An Old-earth Creationist site has an offer of $1,000,000 for proof of Abiogenesis (life from non-life).

Relevant conditions are attached to all of these.

Answer 2

Although the first answer to this question is correct in that these groups do appear to offer rewards for proof of evolution or abiogenesis, there is no actual intent there to give the reward to anyone who offers actual evidence for the mentioned proofs. The conditions attached to these rewards, and the definitions of 'proof' and 'evidence' applied by those who offer them, and even the interpretation of the relevant explanatory models themselves, are carefully chosen so that no evidence or proof that complies with scientific tenets can ever be accepted and the rewards can never be awarded.

== == Believing in evolution of species is called being realistic. It is recognizing the facts of science. Persons who believe that evolution is true are often referred to as evolutionists.

Persons who are true believers in evolution specifically exclude anything other than a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of the earth and universe and particularly life on earth.

Theistic evolutionists is a term given to those who try to match theism, or belief in a God or gods as the one or ones involved in an original creation, with evolution being the mechanism which has produced ongoing changes over time to the point where we are today. Sometimes this also includes a God or gods guiding or directing the process of evolution.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Charles Darwin put forward the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in his book, The Evolution of Species, published in 1859. Following decades of research he put forward the scientific theory that all species have evolved from earlier species, back to the beginning of life on Earth. Genetic mutations occur from time to time, and randomly, in living creatures. Natural selection is what decides whether a mutation will help the species survive in a competitive environment. If, as the result of some change passed down from its parents, an individual is better able to find food, evade predators or attract sexual partners, then that individual is more likely to produce a greater number of offspring, eventually leading to improvement in its gene pool.

Creationism
There are several forms of creationism, and new variants are constantly put forward, as old variants are discarded. The chief groupings of creationists are known as "Young-Earth creationists" and "Old-Earth creationists".

Young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that all life forms were originally created in much the same form as we see today. Most Young-Earth creationists do accept the reality of 'micro-evolution', evolution within a species, as the evidence of small changes are so obvious for all to see. The principal arguments put forward by Young-Earth creationists are intended to disprove evolution rather than to prove creationism.

Because the scientific evidence for the great age of the Earth has become so overwhelming, some creationists have adopted an "Old-Earth creationism" stance. Most accept that species really have evolved over the eons. They accept the age of the Earth but insist that natural selection is not the reason for evolution. One of the most recent hypotheses put forward by Old-Earth creationists is called Intelligent Design. One variant of this holds that God took part in the evolution of life throughout history, guiding the progress of evolution. Another variant holds that God, in some way, made the rules for evolution at the beginning of the Universe and that those rules inevitably and predictably resulted in life as we know it.

For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation