Question:
Intelligent Design is obviously BS. Can anyone give me a rational explanation of how it is not?
2007-05-23 15:17:51 UTC
If you could prove "the designer" exists, would that prove that they still have influence here and now?
Fifteen answers:
Questioner
2007-05-24 08:30:34 UTC
Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.



When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”



The human brain makes the complex computer look like a child’s toy in comparison to complexity. Is it logical to believe that the brain designed the computer, but the brain is a product of time and chance?
BryanN
2007-05-26 10:17:48 UTC
Well, I'm not a "believer in Intelligent Design." I would consider myself an evolutionist. However, you question embarrasses me because you've obviously never made an attempt to understand intelligent design - wrong though it may be. Intelligent design has nothing to do with proving the existence of a design. It simply theorizes the idea that the diversity of life was in part directed by some outside force other then evolution.



Intelligent design is not science. But it's not dangerous either, and frankly you're being closed minded by not making a serious attempt to understand it before you disagree with it.
The_Cricket: Thinking Pink!
2007-05-23 15:25:02 UTC
Wow, this question would require a really long answer.



A rational explanation? I could suggest a few books to you to read that could at least give you a start. Then you could do what I've started to do, which is go into the books used as reference points. You could start with In Six Days by John Ashton, Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, and just about ANYTHING by Ralph Muncaster.

Just go to Amazon.com and type in "apologetics." That brings up a huge list of books. I have limited funds, so I've just barely started.



No, there is no proof that God exists. There is only evidence, but BOTH sides have evidence. And no, the evidence would not prove that God still has influence now. However, there is evidence that He DOES still have influence.



This is all I'm going to say for now, but if you want a more technical answer, I can provide it.
MARY B
2007-05-23 15:53:41 UTC
An intelligently designed human being doesn't have to prove the Designer exists....

An intelligently designed human being is consciously aware of the fact the Designer exists...

An intelligently designed human being does not succumb to manipulation or influence of any kind...
Minh
2007-05-23 15:24:21 UTC
ID is intellectually bankrupt enough to be hard to completely refute, since it's essentially a claim that we'll never know some things that we don't currently know.



One can point to how its examples tend to fail spectacularly, and one can point to the flaws in its design (for example, how an idea that relies so much on information theory uses a completely skewed verion of information theory). Still, because ID is ultimately religion, it's ultimately going to be hard to convince its followers that they're barking up a dead horse.



ID people say that they can show that something could not have evolved, but since they have been demonstratably wrong every time, that should be a strong hint that they don't know what they are talking about.
The Bog Nug
2007-05-23 15:22:28 UTC
Technically, you'd only have to demonstrate that a designer was necessary at any point for the process to work. It doesn't matter if the designer still has influence.



Of course, they can't, and they don't really try to prove it, but they keep muddying the waters saying "Teach the controversy."
2007-05-23 15:27:21 UTC
Simply put no one is going to change your mind. To believe in a desinger is to believe in faith. So I will not attempt to prove you "wrong" because faith is not a right or wrong explanation. It is a belief or a non-belief.



I don't mean to answer you with another question but how do you explain something from nothing ? To rule out intelligence design as a plausable explanation is to admit that all we are and all we will ever be is strictly by chance. How can you live not believing in something bigger than yourself? Simply put, if we are a product of happenstance, then we truly do not influence our environment. We have no hope beyond what we can see, hear, taste, smell or touch.



Why then do we care about our future? Why do we desire as a civilization to explore ? Why are we creative ? Rhetorical questions that point towards these things being created in us, not just a by-product of circumstance. DNA strands do not create love, passion, hope, happiness, joy. They do not account for our desire to know more than we know, to see more than we see. That was created, that was put in each of us. By whom ??



I know this hasn't changed your mind. But thanks for letting me speak mine.
nikola333
2007-05-23 15:27:30 UTC
Study why electrons remain in orbit around gluoned quarks by the weak force which is not strong enough to resist the electrons escape velocity when at the speed of light which is contradictory to all logic. To further complicate the matter they assume predetermined orbits which is preposterous, impossible and yet fact. Then to top it all off if you try to separate the quarks held together by the color force the color force grows in intensity proportionately to the distance of separation, which defies all physical laws. This if you think about it is not only by design but deliberate and purposeful.
2007-05-23 15:22:40 UTC
Take a look at the soda can, and a banana. I don't know why it proves it, but it does somehow. Just ask Kirk Cameron.





(no rational explanation exists)
Curious George, C.Ac
2007-05-23 15:24:07 UTC
I'm just going to chime in to say I agree if you are stating "Intelligent Design is obviously BS, 'when it is passed off as science'."



If a person wants to believe/have faith in I.D. I don't have a problem with it. Just don't claim it is scientific.
doogan
2016-11-27 02:04:19 UTC
putting smart layout and clarification in a similar sentence is a contradiction in words. smart layout doesn’t clarify something, yet purely states that such and such phenomenon is purely too complicated to be defined via evolution, and hence we could desire to chalk it as much as God’s creative ability. identity purports to poke holes in the properly accepted concept of evolution (which it somewhat doesn’t), and then doesn’t posit something in its place different than the confirmation of human lack of expertise, and a reliance on delusion to “clarify” that lack of expertise away. identity isn't a competing concept, yet a political flow that seeks to indoctrinate teenagers via disparaging real technological awareness. to make certain how absurd the functional layout line of reasoning relatively is, enable us to assert that i'm able to’t make certain why our bodies fall while dropped (presume that I stay in the time in the previous Galileo and Newton). Now somewhat of attempting to decipher what actual phenomenon are at play that could desire to reason our bodies to fall, I purely throw my palms up in the air and say that that's purely too complicated, and hence that's information that God could desire to be pushing each and every thing we throw up in the air to the floor. Even smart layout proponents would not be satisfied with this answer, as a results of fact even they have faith in gravitation, however the coolest judgment used in this analogy is not any distinctive than what's used via smart layout advocates. in short smart layout isn't a competing concept, although that's a form of psychological laziness that substitutes conjecture for real technological awareness.
Hey, Ray
2007-05-23 15:22:46 UTC
I have nothing to prove. evidence is relative and nothing can be proven. I just don't believe that a universe with a 1 in 10^123 chance of supporting human life is a mistake, or that science, which has many gaps that have been covered up falsly many times, is 100% accurate in all things.
lundstroms2004
2007-05-23 15:24:53 UTC
rational.



If a cave man walks in the jungle and discovers a watch, it is reasonable for the cave man to assume a watch maker.



If a modern man looks to the stars, it is reasonable for him to assume a universe maker.



Just because something is rational does not make it true. However, believing in a designer for the universe, though unprovable, is rational.
2007-05-23 15:21:59 UTC
we are not thrown together like a pile of garbage

therefore we are intelligently designed

you could say nature or evolution designed us

and be an atheist

and still believe in intelligent design
A. Sparkle
2007-05-23 15:38:18 UTC
Do you really want an answer?..

LEARNING From Designs in Nature

"Many of our best inventions are copied from, or already in use by, other living things."—Phil Gates, Wild Technology.

AS MENTIONED in the preceding article, the aim of the science of biomimetics is to produce more complex materials and machines by imitating nature. Nature manufactures its products without causing pollution, and they tend to be resilient and light, yet incredibly strong.

For example, ounce for ounce, bone is stronger than steel. What is its secret? Part of the answer lies in its well-engineered shape, but the key reasons lie deeper—at the molecular level. "The success of living organisms lies in the design and assembly of their smallest components," explains Gates. As a result of peering into these smallest components, scientists have isolated the substances that give natural products from bone to silk their envied strength and light weight. These substances, they have discovered, are various forms of natural composites.

The Miracle of Composites

Composites are solid materials that result when two or more substances are combined to form a new substance containing properties that are superior to those of the original ingredients. This can be illustrated by the synthetic composite fiberglass, which is commonly used in boat hulls, fishing rods, bows, arrows, and other sporting goods.* Fiberglass is made by setting fine fibers of glass in a liquid or jellylike matrix of plastic (called a polymer). When the polymer hardens, or sets, the end result is a composite that is lightweight, strong, and flexible. If the kinds of fibers and the matrix are varied, an enormously broad range of products can be made. Of course, man-made composites are still crude compared with those found naturally in humans, animals, and plants.

In humans and animals, instead of fibers of glass or carbon, a fibrous protein called collagen forms the basis of the composites that give strength to skin, intestines, cartilage, tendons, bones, and teeth (except for the enamel).# One reference work describes collagen-based composites as being "among the most advanced structural composite materials known."

For example, consider tendons, which tie muscle to bone. Tendons are remarkable, not just because of the toughness of their collagen-based fibers but also because of the brilliant way these fibers are woven together. In her book Biomimicry, Janine Benyus writes that the unraveled tendon "is almost unbelievable in its multileveled precision. The tendon in your forearm is a twisted bundle of cables, like the cables used in a suspension bridge. Each individual cable is itself a twisted bundle of thinner cables. Each of these thinner cables is itself a twisted bundle of molecules, which are, of course, twisted, helical bundles of atoms. Again and again a mathematical beauty unfolds." It is, she says, "engineering brilliance." Is it any surprise that scientists speak of being inspired by nature's designs?—Compare Job 40:15, 17.

As mentioned, man-made composites pale when compared with those of nature. Still, synthetics are remarkable products. In fact, they are listed among the ten most outstanding engineering achievements of the past 25 years. For example, composites based on graphite or carbon fibers have led to new generations of aircraft and spacecraft parts, sporting goods, Formula One race cars, yachts, and ightweight artificial limbs—to mention just a few items in a rapidly growing inventory.



An Extinct Fly Helps to Improve Solar Panels



While visiting a museum, a scientist saw pictures of an extinct fly preserved in amber, says a report in New Scientist magazine. He noticed a series of gratings on the insect's eyes and suspected that these might have helped the fly's eyes to capture more light, especially at very oblique angles. He and other researchers began conducting experiments and confirmed their hunch.

Scientists soon made plans to try to etch the same pattern of gratings onto the glass of solar panels. This, they hope, will increase the energy generated by solar panels. It might also eliminate the need for the costly tracking systems presently required to keep solar panels pointed at the sun. Better solar panels may mean less fossil fuel use and, thus, less pollution—a worthy goal. Clearly, discoveries like this one help us to appreciate that nature is a veritable mother lode of brilliant designs just waiting to be found, understood and, where possible, copied in useful ways.

Multifunctional, Miraculous Blubber

Whales and dolphins don't know it, but their bodies are wrapped in a miracle tissue—blubber, a form of fat. "Whale blubber is perhaps the most multifunctional material we know," says the book Biomimetics: Design and Processing of Materials. Explaining why, it adds that blubber is a marvelous flotation device and so helps whales surface for air. It provides these warm-blooded mammals with excellent insulation against the cold of the ocean. And it is also the best possible food reserve during nonfeeding migrations over thousands of miles. Indeed, ounce for ounce, fat yields between two and three times as much energy as protein and sugar.

"Blubber is also a very bouncy rubberlike material," according to the above-mentioned book. "Our best estimate now is that acceleration caused by the elastic recoil of blubber that is compressed and stretched with each tail stroke may save up to 20% of the cost of locomotion during extended periods of continuous swimming."

Blubber has been harvested for centuries, yet only recently has it come to light that about half the volume of blubber consists of a complex mesh of collagen fibers wrapped around each animal. Although scientists are still trying to fathom the workings of this fat-composite mix, they believe that they have discovered yet another miracle product that would have many useful applications if produced synthetically.

Spider silk is five times stronger than steel, yet highly elastic

An Eight-Legged Engineering Genius

In recent years scientists have also been looking very closely at the spider. They are keen to understand how it manufactures spider silk, which is also a composite. True, a broad range of insects produce silk, yet spider silk is special. One of the strongest materials on earth, it "is the stuff that dreams are made of," said one science writer. Spider silk is so outstanding that a list of its amazing properties would seem unbelievable.

Why do scientists use superlatives when describing spider silk? Besides being five times stronger than steel, it is also highly elastic—a rare combination in materials. Spider silk stretches 30 percent farther than the most elastic nylon. Yet, it does not bounce like a trampoline and so throw the spider's meal into the air. "On the human scale," says Science News, "a web resembling a fishing net could catch a passenger plane."

If we could copy the spider's chemical wizardry—two species even produce seven varieties of silk—imagine how it could be put to use! In vastly improved seat belts as well as in sutures, artificial ligaments, lightweight lines and cables, and bulletproof fabrics, to name just a few possibilities. Scientists are also trying to understand how the spider makes silk so efficiently—and without the use of toxic chemicals.

The ruby-throated hummingbird makes a 600-mile [1,000 km] journey on less than one tenth of an ounce [3 g] of fuel

Nature's Gearboxes and Jet Engines

Gearboxes and jet engines keep today's world on the move. But did you know that nature also beat us to these designs? Take the gearbox, for example. Gearboxes allow you to change gears in your vehicle so as to get the most efficient use out of the motor. Nature's gearbox does the same, but it does not link engine to wheels. Rather, it links wings to wings! And where can it be found? In the common fly. The fly has a three-speed gearshift connected to its wings, allowing it to change gears while in the air!

The nautilus has special chambers that enable it to regulate its buoyancy

The squid uses a form of jet propulsion

The squid, the octopus, and the nautilus all have a form of jet propulsion that drives them through the water. Scientists view these jets with envy. Why? Because they are composed of soft parts that cannot break, that can withstand great depths, and that run silently and efficiently. In fact, a squid can jet along at up to 20 miles [32 km] an hour when fleeing predators, "sometimes even leaping out of the water and onto the decks of ships," says the book Wild Technology.

Yes, taking just a few moments to reflect on the natural world can fill us with awe and appreciation. Nature truly is a living puzzle that prompts one question after another: What chemical marvels ignite the brilliant, cold light in fireflies and certain algae? How do various arctic fish and frogs, after being frozen solid for the winter, become active again when they thaw out? How do whales and seals stay under the water for long periods without a breathing apparatus? And how do they repeatedly dive to great depths without getting decompression sickness, commonly called the bends? How do chameleons and cuttlefish change color to blend with their surroundings? How do hummingbirds cross the Gulf of Mexico on less than one tenth of an ounce [3 gm] of fuel? It seems that the list of questions could go on endlessly.

Truly, humans can only look on and wonder. Scientists develop an awe "bordering on reverence" when they study nature, says the book Biomimicry.

Chameleons change color to blend with their surroundings

Behind the Design—A Designer!

Associate professor of biochemistry Michael Behe stated that one result of recent discoveries within the living cell "is a loud, clear, piercing cry of 'design!'" He added that this result of efforts to study the cell "is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science."

Understandably, evidence of a Designer creates problems for those who adhere to the theory of evolution, for evolution cannot account for the sophisticated design within living things, especially at the cellular and molecular levels. "There are compelling reasons," says Behe, "to think that a Darwinian explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive."

In Darwin's time the living cell—the foundation of life—was thought to be simple, and the theory of evolution was conceived in that era of relative ignorance. But now science has gone past that. Molecular biology and biomimetics have proved beyond all doubt that the cell is an extraordinarily complex system packed with exquisite, perfect designs that make the inner workings of our most sophisticated gadgets and machines look like child's play by comparison.

Giving Credit Where It Is Due

In 1957, Swiss engineer George de Mestral noticed that the small, tenacious burs clinging to his clothes were covered with tiny hooks. He studied these burs and their hooks, and soon his creative mind caught fire. He spent the next eight years developing a synthetic equivalent of the bur. His invention took the world by storm and is now a household name—Velcro.

Imagine how de Mestral would have felt had the world been told that no one designed Velcro, that it just happened as the result of a string of thousands of accidents in a workshop. Clearly, fairness and justice demand that credit be given where it is due. Human inventors obtain patents to ensure that it is. Yes, it seems that humans deserve credit, financial rewards, and even praise for their creations, which are often inferior imitations of things in the natural world. Should not our wise Creator receive acknowledgment for his perfect originals?

Brilliant design leads us to the logical conclusion, says Behe, "that life was designed by an intelligent agent." Is it not reasonable, therefore, that this Agent also has a purpose, one that includes humans? If so, what is that purpose? And can we learn more about our Designer himself?


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