Try to convince me about "Intelligent Design"?
I'm getting quite fed up with all of this Intelligent Design/creationist mumbo jumbo. I challenge you guys to come up with some good arguments that prove the ID "theory".
I AM NOT ASKING FOR ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTIONISM THIS CONCERNS ID ONLY!!! PROVING ONE THEORY WRONG DOES NOT PROVE ANOTHER THEORY RIGHT !!!
I'm a future Catholic Priest and I am, as a logical human being a supporter of Evolutionism, as is the Vatican.
P.S. The bible does not count as a scientific text, it was written by humans and tells us how we can live together and can answer religious questions, not scientific ones.
For those who are answering that you cannor prove it, and that it is a matter of faith, why then is it being spread like a scientific thruth? I think an open mind is very important, and that everyone can believe anything, but you mustn't mistake a belief for a scientific thruth!!
If you want to do that, you need scientific evidence.
TO: butter with a touch of scotch
I am not using anyone's religion, I'm using years of scientific research and proven facts. How can you even say I am using my religion?
And if I were narrow minded I wouldn't ask for arguments against my beliefs, would I?
I try to look at a problem from different points of view, and than deciding, based upon logic, facts and such what seems right. If someone proves ID, I would support ID, but no one has yet given me any scientific proof. And as for the life is too complex thing, you don't only have to think about 4,5 billion years of evolution, but also on much more planets, systems and maybe universed beyond us, we live in a certain system, and think it was meant to be, but there are a lot of other places where these conditions do not occur, We may find it strange that these certain conditions appear here, but hey could have appeared anywhere.
I'm sorry if I make any linguistic mistakes, but I'm not a native English speaker
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Okee dokee.... sigh. Well, to start off, I am convinced Creation/ID is correct, atleast in premise. Of course, if it is science, it's going to have quite a few holes, but hey, that's science. Now, you said, don't try to disprove Evolution, try to prove ID. You'll note that my sister just asked, "What would you consider proof?" which I think is a very important question... one I won't be surprised if you can't answer. I'm not sure I would be able to, or anyone will be able to. There is a reason for this.
I am very interested in science (hehe, two creation-believing science-interested sisters... we love science!! For myself, I love physics, astronomy, biology, linguistics (!!), psychology, neuro-related stuff, etc.) But when my sister was talking about your question just five minutes ago, I was struck with something my biology professor stressed last year in college. She stressed it repeatedly. I don't know if it adds any credibility in your mind, but I go to a very secular college where they most definitely don't believe in ID or creation. Definitely evolution. Sooo, my evolutionist biology professor said this... repeatedly... and my (liberal) psychology professor probably said it too, now that I think about it. It was, quite simply;
"Science canNOT prove anything. All it can do is come up with hypothesis after hypothesis, disproving the ones that don't work, and honing in on the truth. ALL science can do is disprove things, it cannot prove anything."
And she was right, if you think about it. Take Einstein's theory of relativity, and Newton's theory of gravity. The first hypothesis was gravity, and it was proven to be somewhat wrong, so Einstein came and tweaked it all quite a lot (!!) and relativity has NOT been proven to be completely true, I even recently saw a article about some test results that suggested they need to tweak it even more. Science disproved the exact accuracy of Newton's theory, but never could PROVE the accuracy of Einstein. Either relativity will continue to work, or it will be proven not quite accurate as well, and they will have to tweak the theories again.
See, quite literally, neither Evolution (spontaneous-generation/pondsc... evolution)(not Natural Selection, which ANY creationist will agree is a FACT), nor ID, nor Creationism can be proven. Not one of them can be. All of them could possibly be disproven. But Science does not prove. It disproves and gradually gets closer and closer to the truth. Even if you happen upon the truth.... you can't prove it. You just can't disprove it. But even like Einstein's theories... there's that possibility that one day, a crazy unforeseen experiment result will show that it just isn't quite right, and you're going to have to tweak it.
So, for you to say, "Prove ID, but don't disprove SG Evolution (spontaneous generation)" is very unscientific. It is also unfair to those of us who would like to argue logically for ID. You ask the wrong question, and refuse to let us answer the possible-to-answer one. See? We CAN'T prove ID. Thing is, no one needs absolute proof to have good reason to believe something. I don't have proof that a stop-light really is red for the perpendicular road while it is green for me. I don't have proof until I get right into the intersection, at which point I've already placed faith in it. But even though I never had proof, I certainly had many good reasons to believe it would be safe. Evidence and reasons are all we have to base stuff on. Proof... well.... keep thinking about my sister's question, "what WOULD you consider to be proof?"
p.s. I think you speak English quite well. :)
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Try reading Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh.
The Intelligent Design business is just thinly
disguised Creationism trying desperately to find
some way to push into classrooms without
violating the Supreme Court's ruling against the
use of Creationism in schools.
Behe, Dembski and Johnson are just creationists
who refuse to accept any scientific evidence that
does not match their preconceptions. The attempt
to use "irreducible complexity"as evidence of
an intelligent designer has failed on at least two
The first one is that their favorite examples, blood
clotting and the human eye are neither one
irreducibly complex. This has been experimentally
proved for blood clotting, and is obvious for the
eye from the variety of eyes of different structures
currently in existence. The second is that, even if
there is such a thing as irreducible complexity,
which seems doubtful, it would be a mark of
UNintelligent design. Well designed systems have
backups to cope with a variable environment. They
don't simply quit when one small piece happens to
- 1 decade ago
No theory concerning God or a creator is provable, and none ever will be. ID is just a way of dealing with a few unanswered questions concerning the creation of the Big Bang and what set the universe into motion while pursuing the same basic ideas of evolution.
The Bible clearly says that without faith we cannot please God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and being certain of what is not seen. This is the antithesis of proof - which is to be certain based upon what we see.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Intelligent Design says that evolution alone is not enough to account for the complexity of structures and systems present in multicellular eukaryotic organisms, even given a 4.5 billion year age of the Earth.
Short of locating the agent(s) of Intelligent Design, or corroborating evidence of their existence, Intelligent Design cannot be proven. It isn't even a scientific theory.
There is no direct evidence for Intelligent Design. The indirect evidence cited by IDers is to point to systems of "irreducible complexity" (e.g. blood clotting) and state that those systems would be unlikely to have evolved.
You should read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. You probably won't come to the same conclusion he presents -- but at least you'll see his examples and his reasoning. There's nothing wrong with having to think, eh?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MichaelLv 41 decade ago
You won't recieve a good answer to this because ID is not a testable hypothesis. It also creates a false dichotomy between itself and evolution (as if the myriad of other creation stories out there don't exist).
Further, evolution isn't even about creation -- it's about what happens AFTER you already have life. The actual scientific theory that talks about the same thing as the creation stories is Abiogenesis. (It breaks down literally, a-bio-genesis, "without-life-creation", or life from non-life.)
The only reason ID is even around is because evolution offends people. It's the old God of the Gaps thing with some Aristocentrism thrown in there. Allow me to share a brief history of religion and science:
Religion: "What, you mean we're not the center of a flat, circular Earth? But I thought we were special."
Religion: "What, we're not the center of the universe? We go around the sun?! But I thought we were special."
Religion: "What, there were eons of time passing by before any humans were around?! But I thought we were special!"
Religion: "What, we're not the center of creation?! Or even the goal of evolution?! But I thought we were special."
Science: "Nope. Sorry again."
(Not that science implies we're not special.. but simply that our special-ness comes from being human, not from silly things like where we are or how we got here.)
Wow...this turned in rambling. Sorry.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ask this in Society and Culture - that's where all fundamentalists hang out.
And where did you get this "Evolutionism" from? That makes it sound like some sort of dogma, and Evolution is a scientific theory that is based on evidence, not belief.
- 1 decade ago
As a logical human being, think about this...
at some point, logic and reasoning has become your measure of truth. without using logic and reason to prove 'why logic and reasoning is the test of truth?' using logic to prove logic is circular.
so, at what point did you place your faith in logic? is faith in a creator illogical?
also who decides what is a 'religious' question that scientists cannot answer? who decides what is a 'scientific' question that religion cannot answer?
if science classifies the question as a 'scientific' question, thus expelling all religious discussion, what is the over arching philosophy that allows science to supercede religion?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Well, the only way to prove the Intelligent Design hypothesis (note I said hypothesis and not theory, a dictionary will tell you why), is by finding an unambiguous message from God telling us this is the way it is. I doubt any so-called message would be unambiguous, so we are left exactly where we are. There is no proof for intelligent Design/Creation.
- 1 decade ago
well, not allowing us to use our religion but at the same time using urs is a bit hypocritical. anyway, ID is the theory that life forms are so complex even on the molecular level that the only way they could come into existence is thru a divine being. think about it, do you think that everything came into existence because an explosion in space created it versus a divine being creating it?