Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Essay

The feud between creationist and scientist about the origins of the universe dates back to the 20’s during the Scopes trial. Scientist are against creationism because there is no evidence to support the theory. Scientist support Charles Darwin’s theory Darwinism, the theory that organisms evolve from simple to complex through minor adaptations over time, because it has held up for more than a century. Rowe’s article expresses how he believes that creationist created intelligent design to take the place of creationism in public schools after the Supreme Court ruled that

However, in the case of Gary, the theory of intelligent design he believes in, in my opinion, that is, it's origins are embedded in an ascentheory?ntelligence; which appears to me, is initially built on a matter of faith, through which intelligence and intelligent matter ascends and intertwines, skirts with Darwinism, but leaves natural selection as such, while assuming the Cambrian explosion came

“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

This means that the system appears impossible to create by the course of naturalistic evolution, that is, many small and gradual steps that eventually form the functioning product. Evolutionary theory proponents have, so far, been unable to satisfactorily address the issue of irreducible complexity in biological systems such as the eye and the blood. Intelligent Design theorists, however, are easily able to explain the phenomenon of irreducible complexity by pointing to the existence of an intelligent being that either guided or created the first forms of life.

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).

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.

Intelligent Design. Should the school teach about a universe created on the concept of evolution, or one created beyond explanation? Darwin’s theory states that species develop through the idea behind natural selection. He also mentions that because of species ability to survive and reproduce throughout time, humans and apes are connected. Intelligent Design is formed around the idea that the world is to complex to be considered a scientific creation.

To answer this question a good understanding of Intelligent Design is essential. As stated, it is the belief that life or the universe was created by an outside being or intelligence. The said intelligence does not have to be a god. Who or what created life is up to the believer. People can believe in different creators but still support the same Intelligent Design theory. Intelligent Design (ID) just acknowledges that the universe was created by something and not randomly formed. Many scientists, along with non- experts, believe in ID because biological structures are so complex and suitable for life it seems that they would have to be carefully designed. This may sound similar to creationism, however it is very

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.

"Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise."

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 argument of intelligent design argues that all things have order and are set towards a goal (and) come about with intentions of reaching or fulfilling said goal. Living beings are complex and require order to work efficiently. They consist of many different parts that all come together (intertwine) and interact in order to function.

Ever since 1859 and the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin1, his first publication of his observations, much debate has come about concerning the issue of how life on earth came to be. Both the Creationists and Evolutionists believe in the "Big Bang" theory of creation of life; however, the mechanism for the development of new life provides the conflict. Evolutionists believe the cause of life on earth to be accidental, random atomic collisions (non-living matter), known as abiogenesis2. Creationists believe the cause to be supernatural intervention outside the physical world, God. Both groups have reasons for what they believe. However, proving either theory

The Intelligent Design Argument for the existence of God is as scientific as Darwinian Evolution. The Intelligent Design scientist use the scientific method as much as evolutionary scientists. See “Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information” (Intelligent Design). Both are simply theories that have yet to be proven or disproven. Science is observational, and since no one was around in the beginning no one can truly “scientifically” know how the universe came about.

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