Intelligent Design: Today's New World Essay

The two-hour special documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, features the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case in 2004. It captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Some members of the community believed that not only Darwinism, but also a so called theory, Intelligent Design, should be taught in their public high school. It was a battle between the two theories. It forced neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. The community itself was broken half and half on the controversial issue.

In the modern world, mankind is surrounding by a plethora of unique animals, plants, and other organism that have a certain natural design all their own. For instance, every organism appears to be best suited in their natural environment, as they are usually able thrive under unique conditions that may not optimal for every organism. Thus, it would appear as though divine intervention was necessary for this perfect design and placement of an organism into their environment. Consequently, this was the ideology for many centuries until Charles Darwin explained how these “illusions” fit into his theory of natural selection. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection stated that the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, such as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations (Cite). Although it is widely accepted that many of human’s physical traits are inherited from their parents, the notion that the mind has evolved and is designed to function is certain ways is still controversial (Cite). With that being said, the majority of theories that illustrate how the mind develops are still being debated. Moreover, the

In the film Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a small, rural town in Dover, Pennsylvania is being analyzed for its Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case. Dover is a school district in Pennsylvania whose school board argued that their students should be aware of Intelligent Design as an alternative to teaching Darwinism. There are several arguments being discussed throughout this documentary. The most expressed argument is whether not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Some other prevailing arguments are the belief that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing, the argument that evolution is neutral to religion, and the argument that evolution should not be questioned no matter what. Questions such as these captivate the mind and makes people wonder what the real truth is.

Moreover, today’s criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms such as creationism, Li 2 neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini).

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

Although Darwin’s (1809-1882) work in evolutionary observation might appear radically different from those focused on other areas, the theories he developed from these observation lead to such groundbreaking publishing’s as The Origin of Species. These intern caused an upset within the then accepted norms of philosophy and religion, had a profound impact on the academia, and further

Ex. 'X' is a complicated system made up of interconnected parts. If you take any of the parts away, 'X' won't work. Therefore, 'X' could not have evolved from a simpler state, as anything less than the full set of parts work not work.

Paley’s assumption influenced scientists to assume that God designed nature thus, assuming intelligent design to be implemented by laws. Subsequently, the Charles Darwin hypothesis explain his assumption on the problem of evil as well, design in nature and with the natural selection clarified adaptation arguing that, everything that result from designed laws. In 1986, Meyer review suggested that, messages conveyed within DNA cell specified intelligence arguing to have originated from an intelligent agent. With this regard, the innovation of DNA cells merely outlined the supernaturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

The example of the watch exemplifies the order and complexity of the universe, and also is shown as evidence that the universe was designed. The universe is perceived to consist of many different parts functioning in harmony to accomplish some purpose, giving us reason to believe that an intelligent agent created it for a purpose. Also in this argument from design, Paley tries to show how the common objections some may bring to the argument are insufficient in disproving

The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. The important question of why we are here can’t be answered by science alone. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things, it defines our world-view. The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the Great Debate. 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the debate Evolutionists and Creationists agree on one thing only, that the universe has not always existed. This is where their agreement ends. The why and how the universe began is where the division and dispute begins.

With the rise of modern science over the centuries came a vigorous attack on Christian theology; most universally recognized is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Although it has been taught throughout schools across the country since the 1960’s, recent legislature entitled “academic freedom” bills has encouraged skepticism of Darwin’s theory due to the inherent contradictions of it. Still, some people challenge Christianity on the basis of a lack of evidence, yet they’ll turn to theories of evolution which lack empirical support without enquiry.

In terms of Intelligent Design, it is clear that this is not a Science. Intelligent Design can fall under the category of pseudoscience for many reasons. One of which is because it meets Alan Blum’s criteria for pseudoscience. Throughout the whole field of Intelligent Design, there is really no legitimate evidence that can lead to Intelligent Design being accurate. Number three of Blum’s criteria for identifying something as pseudoscience is “By convincing the audience that the results are legitimate science.” (Saindon, 2014). Throughout this point from his criteria, he outlines the points that “there are other ways of convincing an audience that the results are legitimate science, especially if the audience is

The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans.” (Answers in Genesis 1). Despite the many claims that “evolution” simply means a change, scientifically speaking it means much more. Evolutionary ideals describe changes that allow scientists to date life on the earth to be 4.5 billion years, to trace the entire living population of every animal, insect, plant, virus, and bacteria back to one simple cell, and to conclude that the first cell supposedly came into being sporadically from a pool of organic molecules (Archean 1). Science cannot factually support evolutionary concepts because evolution cannot be tested; observation holds a critical role for experiments to take place, yet spontaneous creation of a cell has not recurred since the alleged first living cell created itself. Evolution cannot be proven, and therefore, the public school system should not teach evolution as fact, especially with no exposure to alternative concepts.

Will believers in Intelligent Design be able to embrace the incredibly promising and innovative solutions outlined in Luke Bawazer’s Tedtalk while rejecting Darwin’s theory? No, I do not believe the supporters of Intelligent Design will embrace his solutions. Even though the research is leading to new materials, with electronic functions, that can possibly power our infrastructure while at the same time reduce pollutants in our environment. By accepting the solutions, supporters of Intelligent Design will have to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution if they want to embrace Bawazer’s solutions for creating new biomaterials using DNA.

taken away part of the Earth, right. By taking away that part of the Earth, the "machine" is