Intelligent Design Argument

Paley's Argument For Intelligent Design and Its Criticisms Paley's teleological argument defends the idea of the existence of god through the idea of consistent and orderly design. Paley uses an example of finding a rock on the ground and then finding a watch. He argues that finding the watch, with all of its perfectly fit working parts, suggests an intelligent creator. In his argument, the watch is employed as an analogy for the universe.

I was very surprised about how much religion could corrupt the minds of a community on just a simple subject about creationism. As a person who have studied most of the sciences throughout my college career, I was taught that creationism was only a theory and depending on what religious background you believe in, will argue against it. A part in the movie that surprised me the most was the stupidity of the book the school district tried to have the students study. The textbook was titled “Of Panda and People” Johnstone explains, “Proponents of Intelligent Design claims that many features of living organisms are too complex to have evolve entirely by the natural process of evolution as Charles Darwin proposed” (Johnstone 3:28). After hearing this statement, I was shocked. I have never heard someone state that different features of living organisms are too complex to have evolve by the natural process. That statement does not make any sense. Johnstone explains, “Instead they claim that some aspects of those organisms must have been created fully formed a so called intelligent designer and advocates contend intelligent design is a bold new scientific theory. With the power to overthrow the theory of evolution. Its scientists debating science based on the evidence on not based on any religious text” (Johnstone

Based on my interpretation of William Paley’s The Argument from Design, it sounds as though Darwin’s objection to the argument is invalid from the start. Darwin’s objection says that there doesn’t necessarily need to be a designer, creation could happen by chance through evolution or mutation. While the latter part of his argument is completely valid; things can be created through evolution and mutation, the problem with his argument is that there would still have to be a reason that the former being evolved or mutated. Some kind of event would have had to of taken place in order to spark the change in that being. Paley’s argument primarily uses a watch as his example, explaining that it was

“Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge - in this case, evolution - they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today. " A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science - that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution - or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong

The Design Argument is an argument that says there is a “God” who is the creator of all things. Within this argument, it is stated that things have to be designed – the main example being used is a machine. Cleanthes compares the universe to a machine. They both have many different parts that all work together, but how? The Design Argument says that “God”, or some deity, designed these different elements and pieces in a way so that they can all work together. For a machine to work, all of the pieces must fit together purposefully. When you think about the creator of a machine, for example an engineer, you would most likely think of some intelligent person who created the pieces to make them all fit and work together. Because the world is similar to a machine, by analogy, it too must be created by something intelligent – but on a much grander scale than us.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but it is a religion. It does not qualify as a science because it fails to be part of any general theory of how the natural world operates, instead it offers a supernatural causation. Intelligent design postulates that there are structures that are so complex that they had to be designed rather than have evolved by natural processes. In other words, if something is ‘irreducibly complex’ it was a product of intelligent design. Although such a contention alludes to a designer (god), supporters of intelligent design are cautious not to mention anything about the designer or why he/she work. The opponents of intelligent design have valuable argument to prove that it falls on a religious stance.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection permits adaptation by natural means instead of divine intervention. The Theory of Intelligent Design uses methods used by other sciences to explain that the universe and living things were created by an intelligent cause, not a random process such as natural selection. As Wilson (2005) stated “Many, who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine

The theory is made in assumption that pure creationism, for obvious reasons, can never pass as unaffiliated with religion, and thus can never be taught in government-funded public schools. As of now, its proponents’ claims for the earth’s age vary between 6000 and 4.5 billion years ago, as long as God did it (Branch). Rather than relying on scientific evidence, intelligent design thrives on the most miniscule of holes in evolutionary fossil records and the unfathomability of a living cell being created from inorganic matter. These holes are then complemented with ignorance of viable proof of evolution; proponents of the field have managed to turn these two elements in a supposed science. However, the yet infantile theory has still made its way to public schools in five states, with as many as twenty states currently debating the validity of evolution education.

And yet, intelligent design theorists and Creationists look at nature and see the work of a divine designer, God, a reflection of his intentional purpose to create the universe. Where their theories are flawed with no real proof, Darwin uses inverse thinking that suggests that important things can indeed stem from unimportant things. Instead of relying on unproven mysteries to prove that God created the universe, evolutionists have scientific evidence to prove that no God was needed to create the universe. As scientific knowledge grows and more evidence of evolution is found, the story of evolution gains more strength, giving atheists more rational reasons to believe that God did not create the

The theory of intelligent design theory holds that an intelligent cause and not an indirect process best explain the nature of living things and the universal features. The theory appreciates that, for the existence of the universe and the living things in it, there must have been in existence an intelligent force. The theorist are not out to show proof of the intelligent designer or who the intelligent designer ought to be. Intelligent designers make an observation and subsequent inferences on intelligent agent's actions and the resultants complexities. The inferences and observations are accessed against information obtained in the natural process concluding life is an intelligent design ADDIN EN.CITE Dawes200748067(Dawes 67)48048017Dawes, Gregory W.What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design?International Journal for Philosophy of ReligionInternational Journal for Philosophy of Religion69-816122007Springer( HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_2" o "Dawes, 2007 #480" Dawes 67).

A multitude of arguments have stemmed from this logical thinking, nevertheless, there are a few dominant arguments that are worth exploring in depth, one such argument being “the argument from design.” While no argument involving God is without flaw, “the argument from design” is an argument worth exploring in depth and in which agreement can be found.

Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be

The word “theory” is known as different things to science and beliefs. Scientific method has a four step process that describes the scientific theory. Intelligent design is studied by scientists and they base everything on natural selection, humans, and earth, but has not been proven yet. Studies have shown that this theory is another guess or hypothesis that scientists have not yet proven and are still trying to prove.

Though discussion of Intelligent Design (ID) often occurs in modern times, it is not a new theory. This paper is an exploration of the tenets of ID.

I believe intelligent design was not apart of the beginning the humankind. Studies have shown evolution, and we see what the results have been through evolution, so applying evolution to humans would make sense. On the contrary, using evolution, you can only trace it back so far before hitting a wall and asking questions no one can answer. At this point many people turn to faith, or intelligent design, saying how it’s the only answer. However, it is not. It is not even an answer. It is a theory that is based on people saying “Well there is nothing else that makes sense, so this must be it.” Evolution is also a theory, but it’s a theory that has been backed up with research and study. I believe that when