Question:
A request to any believers in Intelligent Design out there:?
Angel of Caffeine JPA
2008-05-26 14:05:38 UTC
See, I have my Philosophy exam in a week, and I could use a little help. In the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution essays that I have written I keep being told that I need to do both sides justice. Reading over them, I realise that I am a tad sketchy on ID arguments back to the evidence of evolution.

I know the basics, of course, of Paley's teleological argument, but I suppose I need to hear it from some people with a passion for it. Which is where you guys come in!

I'm sorry, because I often snap at people to "do your own bloody homework" and I know how irritating it can be, but I don't personally know any believers in Intelligent Design - I think it's rare in the UK, actually.

So if you're willing to help, I'm willing to listen.

I'm not asking for you to convert me, because I'm very much more interested in science, but I could certainly use some passionate ID responses to the problem of evolution.

Thanks to anyone who's willing to help.

Good day, everyone.
Nine answers:
2008-05-26 15:13:20 UTC
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1 v 1



"Every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything" (Hebrews 3 v 4).



"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the earth"

Psalm 19 v 1-4



"Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" Romans 1 v 20



Foundational Points

* The Bible affirms that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent God.

* The Bible also affirms that human beings can detect the existence of this invisible God by observing the visible universe He has made.

* Towards this end, intelligent design theory uses scientific methodology to uncover evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.

* The evidence is massive, beginning at the molecular level and reaching into the deep recesses of intergalactic space.



RECOGNISING SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE

Human beings have become adapt at recognizing signs of intelligence.

* Sometimes signs of intelligence are obvious - such as the four presidents chiseled into the granite cliff at Mount Rushmore, or seeing words in the sky like "Free Concert in the Park Tonight."

* Other times, signs of intelligence must be uncovered.

- Today, there are many professions that involve seeking for clues of "intelligent design" and intentionality - that is, clues that indicate an intelligent being intentionally engaged in a particular action, as opposed to something being a chance occurence.

Examples include

- Crime-scene investigators (who look for intentionality at crime scenes)

- Insurance investigators (who look for clues of intentional fraud).

- Archeologists (who uncover evidences of intentional design among ruins)

- Cryptographers (who seek to distinguish intelligently encoded messages from random signals)

- Copyright investiagors (who try to detect misuse of copyrighted material)

* Here is the point to remember: The same kinds of evidence that show crime-scene investigators, archeologists, cryptographers, copyright investigators, and people who see words in the sky that an intelligent being was involved - are also clearly seen in the universe around us. There is substantive evidence that an intelligent being intentionally brought our universe into existence, and that the universe was not the result of random chance or a cosmic accident.



* Such evidence serves as the primary focus of an academic field that has come to be known as intelligent design.

* The more we study the universe, the more we find the fingerprints of God - the intelligent Designer.



UNDERSTANDING IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

From a scientific perspective, we infer that an item is intelligently designed if it is irreducibly complex.

* An irreducibly complex mechanism is composed of a number of well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the functioning of that mechanism. If any of these well-matched, interacting parts is removed, the mechanism will no longer function.

* A good example is a mousetrap:

- This mechanism has a number of components, each necessary to its functioning. If any of these components is missing, the mousetrap no longer functions correctly.

- If it's missing a spring, a hammer, or platform, for example, it will not work

- That is why we categorise it as irreducibly complex.

- We thus infer that the mousetrap was designed by an intelligent being.



The Irreducibly Complex Eye

* The irreducible complexity of the eye is evident in that it is a mechanism with many well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the function of sight.

* If any of these well-matched, interacting parts is removed, the eye will not longer see.

* Among these parts are the sclera, the cornea, the aqueous humor, the vitreous humor, the choroid, the retina, the rods and cones, and the pupil, all of which functin together in harmony with the brain to facilitate sight.

* Evolution cannot explain this mechanism. A piece by piece development of this incredibly complex organ - resulting from infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements over an unimaginably long period of time, requiring untold thousands of random positive mutations - cannot be reconciled with the evidence.

* An objective examination of the eye indicates that an incredibly knowledgeable engineer (God) planned the eye from beginning to end.



The Irreducibly Complex Wing

* Evolution also fails to explaining the wing.

* At the very least, a functioning wing requires

- a specific bone structure

- a specific muscle structure

- precise symmetrical positioning on a body (one wing on each side)

- wings proportionally large enough (relative to the size of the animal's body) to facilitate "liftoff"

- bodily coordination

- a synergistic relationship with the brain to make all the above happen

* The irreducibly complex wing gives every evidence of being designed.



Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines

* Unlike the scientists in Darwin's day, scientists to day have discovered that the cell contains ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

* The existence of complex, information-rich structures at the molecular level cannot be explained by Darwinsim but rather calls for the existence of an intelligent designer (God)

* At the molecular level scientists witness such things as

- information storage and transfer

- sorting and delivery systems

- self regulation

* Scientists have also discovered complex molecular mechanisms that contain well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the functioning of that mechanism. For example, at the molecular level one witnesses what might be likened to rotary engines that contain components such as a rotor, a stator, and a driveshaft.

* The complexity witnessed at the molecular level is every bit as high-tech as gadgets created by human beings. Often it is far more sophisticated.

* Observations at the molecular level virtually begt for an explanation - an explanation that Darwinism cannot provide.



THE INFORMATION IN DNA

* DNA is an abbreviation for deozyribonucleic acid. It is a nucleic acid that carries genetic information in the cell; it is capable of self-replication.

* The volume of information contained in DNA staggers the mind:

- There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica - all 30 volumes - three or four times over.

- The information capacity in a pinhead's volume of DNA is equivalent to a pil of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from Earth to the moon.

* Where di this staggering amount of information similar to computor software code - come from?

- Naturalistic evolution cannot explain it

- Computor programs do not write themselves. A programmer is always involved. Even if you provide plenty of time (billions of years), a computor program still cannot write itself.

- The same is true regarding the information in DNA. Somebody (God) had to program that complex information into DNA



THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

* The "anthropic principle" - from the Greek word anthropos, meaning "man" - recognises that conditions on earth are ideal, apparently by design, for the existence of human (and other) life.

* An objective examination of the universe indicates that it is finely tuned - adjusted precisely - for the existence of complex life. Following is a small sampling of key factors:





The atheist is choosing to believe what man says, rather than God, and that is a dangerous position to put yourself in.



Most people don't want there to be a God, so therefore he denies the existence of God. It is an irrational position to take. First of all, it is a claim to omniscience; it says, "I know everything. It is not possible that a God could exist beyond the boundaries of my knowledge." Second, this attitude claims omnipresence; it says, "I am present in all places at one and the same time, and it is not possible that God could exist any place in the universe without my knowing it."

Again, this position ignores the wonders of God's creation - the immensity of the universe, the amazingly precise movement of the planets, the marvelous suitability of the earth to sustain life, the intricate design of the human body, the fantastic complexity of the human brain and the extraordinary properties of water and soil.



Take for instance the suitability of the earth to sustain life.

The earth rotates on its axis at approx 1000 miles per hour. If that had been 100 miles per hour, our days and nights would be 10 times longer, and our planet would alternatively burn and freeze. Under such conditions vegetation could not live!



If the earth were as small as the moon, the power of gravity would too weak to retain sufficient atomosphere for man's needs; but if it were as large as Jupiter, Saturn, or Uranus, extreme gravitation would make human movement almost impossible. If we were as near to the sun as Venus, the heat would be unbearable; if we were as far away as Mars, we would experience snow and ice every night, even in the warmest of regions. If the oceans were half their present dimensions, we would receive only one fourth the rainfall we do now. If they were one eighth larger, our annual precipitation would increase four-fold, and this earth would become a vast, uninhabitable swamp.



Water solidifies at 32 degrees above zero [oF]. It would be distastrous if the oceans froze at that temperature, however, for then the amount of thawing in the polar regions would not balance out, and ic
KingMR
2008-05-26 14:14:43 UTC
Well the bible said that God created Adam from the dirt of the ground. When we die we turn into dirt. This world is beyond our thinking that is why no man (who doesn't believe in God) can figure out the creator of this world or how it was "evolutionized". No man can comprehend it. Its out of our thinking. All the planets and the sun and the moon and etc is out of our thinking. Man will never figure out who made this world without saying there had to be a God. How can something be so perfect. How can EVERYTHING be designed for EVERYTHING to survive on this earth. Before man started killing off the animals even all the animals could survive without being extinct. This world is amazing and there has to be and is a creator named God.
Weise Ente
2008-05-26 14:19:30 UTC
The problem with ID is a matter of definition. They can't even agree on what it means. The actual scientists supporting it all accept common descent, while others reject it, including most of the general public who supports them.
yachadhoo
2008-05-26 14:38:35 UTC
I am afriad that I kind of agree with your "do your own bloody homework" comment. How about reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design



And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument



No offense, but you will likely get better information there...and if not there specifically, there are links to many resources at the bottom providing the names of books of people who write about this stuff with a passion.



You can't do "evolution" justice in some simple answer given in the restraints of a Yahoo Answer, which limits the number of characters. Equally, you can't do "Creationism" justice either.



One "problem" that you (and others) make is pitting Creationism against Evolutionism, which is absurd. They are not even inherent opposites!



Evolution, as all evolutionists make a stink about, has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe...and the transition from non-life to life (i.e. abiogenesis).



Creationism, on the other hand, explains how and why things came to be...from nothing to everything...from no life to life...all the way up to describing how and why us humans are here.



So, your TRUE philosophical debate is really between "theism" and "atheism" - two opposing and contrary worldviews that explain how and why we are here.



Atheists propose that everything came from nothing (bing bang)...and that life came from non-life (abiogensis)...and then simple forms of life evolved into higher forms of life (evolution). Either that, or they try to "Get around" the big bang with string theory and multiverse theory...which basically avoids the whole "everything came from nothing" difficulties. These theories try to circumvent this impossibility by suggesting that matter itself is eternal.



Theists, on the other hand, have the broad explanation of "Creation", in which everything DID come from nothing...even supernaturally, by the power of God, who is eternal. And non-life was created...just as life was created, and all plants and all animals were created, even including humans. Creationism, in and of itself, does not negate "evolution" in any way shape or form. Creationism only implies that a Creator created everything. Perhaps, as some Creationists will contend, God created the universe, and all non-linving things, and then created life...and used evolution as a means of developing the life he created.



In other words, consider the complexity of modern computers compared to computers 40 years ago. They have "evolved" over time with the advancement of science. But the modern computer, and its existance, ahs nothing to do with whether it developed on its own...or if an intelligent being was behind its development. Who is to say that God, in like manner, is not the intelligence "behind" evolution?



So, you can see that you are not comparing opposites, at all. And, unfortunately, there are "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" who seem completely unaware of these truths...



Perhaps there could be a debate between Christian creationists who don't believe in macroevolution versus atheists who believe in macroevolution, but this is an entirely different debate than what you are attempting to discuss.



Microevolution, and the vast variety of animals within "groups" that us humans classify them could either represent "evolution" in action...or the splended diversity of the Creator, who created them all.



But the bottom line in your TRUE debate between atheism and theism is a fixed chasm that can't be crossed.



Both positions are unfalsifiable and unprovable.



Thus, both are believed in by faith.



Here, take a look at my answer on some "similar" questions...



Best answer chosen:

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20080520145254AATokHc&show=7#profile-info-hmU2udmRaa



-



Good day, to you, as well.



As far as not asking to be "converted" because you are very much more interested in science...

This too, makes absolutely no sense.



A passionate love and faith and God can make someone all the more zealous for science...as a way of learning about the Creator who created all things. Many of the most famous scientists in the past were driven with such a passion...to learn more about the universe...so as to glorify God.



-
turtles all the way down
2008-05-26 14:12:19 UTC
I don't support ID, but the best arguments in favor of it are here:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp



Especially interesting is the information argument which (though false) is difficult for people to refute without having learned information theory.
Aslan
2008-05-26 14:13:00 UTC
i know a website that would be useful to you



and i am a believer in ID from the UK - a rarity but not only me who is into it



evolution never held water for me - ever since childhood it didn't make sense fully - but now i discovered websites below it all makes far more sense following the ID way of thinking
Exodus 20:1-17
2008-05-26 14:13:49 UTC
Probably the greatest question that REQUIRES an answer is the origin of energy, matter, time, and space. Where did it all come from? Please do NOT consider vague or even erroneous postulations.



I've got more to offer. Just ask!



GOD bless
2008-05-26 14:09:58 UTC
Oh this should be fun.

I for one cannot wait to read the apologists answers! Hey maybe you'll get lucky and get someone stupid enough to post the "banana is proof of ID" argument...



Edit; Woo Hoo! two thumbs down already! It's gratifying to know that that's the ONLY argument you have supporting ID huh? Please, those of you who think ID is anything more than a fairy tale; don't breed...
2008-05-26 14:14:53 UTC
Sorry - not a believer, I'm sure you know wiki has lots of links and info...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...