There are things of scientific nature that supports and adds validity to an intelligent designer. Look at the second law of thermodynamics, it states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Aka, entropy. But how does this support the idea of a designer? Consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning. (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.
There are more than just this, however, I'll leave you with that to chew on.
As they see just how complex and perfect our environment is. The existence of conscious thought is nothing short of miraculous which indicates intelligent design.
An intelligent designer would take great care to make certain that their invention or creation worked perfectly and looked very nice as well. These things are both so abundantly evident in the natural world that one can easily assign scientific validity to the possibility of intelligent design. Whether or not there will ever be scientific proof of that being is another question entirely.
Sorry, but you are VERY incorrect.
First of all the eye did evolve. From light sensing organisms that are still around to slight depression light sensing organisms, etc.
If you knew anything about the human eye, you'd know that
- compared to birds such as a hawk, we have very poor eyesight. Evolution accounts for that, ID doesn't.
- For a "perfect" organ, it's actually rather screwed up. It "sees" things upside down. Your brain makes the change when you're a few days old. And that change can be reversed.
Intelligent Design is a theory that attempts to bridge the gap between Biblical creationism and evolution. It has no basis in fact, and no testable method of proof, therefore it is not a valid theory. Its entire reason for coming into existence was because the Supreme Court rules that creationism could not be taught in schools because it is not a real science (it is, in fact, a faith). Intelligent design is a scheme to try to teach creationism as a more rigorous science.
The human eye could not have evolved by a freak of nature because it would be impossible for such a complex system that even modern science cannot replicate with all its purpose and cunning, considering the fact that without sight to begin with, non-intelligent processes have no means for anticpating the exixtence of visible light and therefore arriving at a system to detect and utilise that light for improvement of the species. Even if such non-intelligence could know such a thing as visible light existed it would in no way enable it to design and manufacture a working biological mechanism that would be able to see. Random freak complex designs are a statistical miracle. Evolution is the very definition of a miracle.
Think about how everything functions in the world around you. All of your cells work together in perfect harmony all too well to have just been thrown together. Logically it makes more sense to believe that out there, there is a being bigger than ourselves. This creator put care and thought into the genetic makeup and functions everywhere. Things and animals may have adapted to their surroundings, but this does not necessarily imply evolution.
There is no "scientific validity," but that is why it's called faith. But I'm pretty sure the complexity, ingenuity, and amazing features of life happened by accident. I once read someone who had written, "it's like throwing a firecracker at a printer and expecting the declaration of independence to result."
I would just like to say that when ever a species changes, it is always from previous genetics that are from parents, or recessive genetics. The only other time this happens is when genetics are modified, or mutation takes place which has never and will never result to something that is "advancing" to a species
Evolution suggests that because of the many generations of life, the possible mutations that happened cause creatures to evolve. This argument is easily defeated by simple facts. I can put bacteria out there, for YEARS, and given the reproduction rate of bacteria, evolution should happen. The bacteria should be something else, but Lenski's E. coli experiment proves otherwise. The bacteria is still bacteria, and it hasn't become anything else. Hundreds of millions of mutations were found to have happened, but less than a hundred actually survived. And still, the bacteria was still bacteria. It wasn't another species. Evolution tries to say that through these mutations, a monkey evolved into a human? Given the size difference between a monkey and a bacteria, and how much less frequent monkeys are opposed to bacteria, it'd take much longer than millions of years to become human. Sure, the bacteria developed abilities that the original bacteria didn't have, but they haven't become something else. Also, their "evolution" pattern has been rather sporadic and inconsistent with molecular evolution. Their gene expression changes should evolve consistently, but as time went on, after the initial burst of variety (which I suspect was in there already, but without a chance to express itself) the changes became very slow and uncommon, because it ran out of chances. It could only have so many hidden expressions!
It is much easier to read the Bible than it is to read a peer-reviewed scientific journal explaining the theory of evolution. Also, creationist tend to be much less educated than others. Apparently, the more educated you are, the less you actually know. It is actually pathetic if you do not believe in evolution. I can understand the "I don't know about evolution, haven't done my research" response, but I can't understand "Evolution didn't happen because there is no proof, but look at Genesis because it has all the answers and with proof!" It is blatantly willful ignorance.
No single religious clergy/leader has ever absolutely proved that God exists in the first place. Science requires absolute, measurable data. Prove that something happend that cannot, (ie: a miracle), then we can talk about God.If someone proves that the laws of physics/science have been broken, than we can have this discusion. It has never happend. Some things can not be explained, ie: black holes, quarks, simply because we can't accurately measure/study them. However, the laws of science have never been broken.
This isn't a matter of being an atheist or a theist. The question is if there is scientific validity and this is not so. It may be a view compatible with science, philosophical arguments in that regard could be made using scientific findings or consensus as a premise, but this is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one.
Just because there is currently no scientific evidence for intelligent design, it does not mean it is not the case. I do not specifically believe in any one religious view of who the intelligent designer is. However, I do believe that life was created by someone or something. Scientific proof is not needed for me to have faith in my beliefs.
Intelligent design can be part of a religion, part of a plan, or part of something else. Though we can try to merge them together all we want, science needs to stay science. Sure, there is sacred math and other such things around, yet there is no scientific validity to the notion that life was created by intelligent design.
No, I disagree that there is any scientific validity to the notion that life was created by an intelligent designer, because no one has any pure positive proof of how we all got here, or why. A lot of people believe in the Bible and how God created Earth, and what not. But, how are we to know that it's true? After all, the Bible was written a long time ago by a variety of people. These are stories that have no proof. Sure, we all got here some how, and for a reason. But, there's no hard facts of an intelligent designer. The fact is that even believers in God don't know if he is real. We can believe in a lot of things that aren't true, and God is no exception.
its always odd to me how people believe the physical complexities that are explainable by science are indicative of all powerful magic man. if you do not understand, it does not indicate god, that indicates ignorance and laziness.
Science shows that, while living organisms are marvelous, there is no indication of deliberate design in their structures and functions. Instead, organisms are a wonderful hodgepodge of genetic material that has mutated or has found new functions countless times in the past. Hens don't need teeth, but they retain the genetic capability to grow teeth similar to those of their ancient ancestors. Whales don't need finger bones and toe bones in their flukes, but they retain that structure long after having evolved from a land mammal into a sea mammal.
All science is based on real world observations, and should never be swayed by the religious beliefs of a few people (eg. intelligent design).
Here is an example: while humans walk upright we do it with the same basic parts that any mammal like say a dog uses to walk on all fours. This leads to all sorts of problems in the lower back as we age. If life was intelligently designed why would the designer elect to use the same parts for such widely different forms of locomotion. It would make more sense to design quadrupeds with their own muscular skeletal structures and bipeds with and entirely different set. You can see this all over nature, the capacity to adapt similar structures to multiple tasks, if you look at a bird wing it has many of the same bones as the human hand, which indicates a common ancestor, that at one time neither walked upright nor flew, why use the same template for such different tasks?
I am always interested to hear the 'yes' argument in this debate. Unfortunately the anonymous post I just read managed to sum up the reason why intelligent design is simply an explanation created by people who haven't explored the subject in detail. 'Random freak complex designs are a statistical miracle. Evoluation is the very definition of a miracle' is the phrase I refer to. Although the complex organisms are hugely impressive and beautifully arranged, they haven't been designed. For every intricate system which works successfully, there have been uncountable numbers of systems which don't work..... suprisingly enough these aren't around to see today because the individual with this design is no longer alive, they were selected against. Every unsuccesful design is removed until only successful ones are left. People often highlight hugely complex organisms as prrof of intelligent design, unfortunately they forget the much more simple ones. Life is both simple and complex (on a relative scale) and each organism is adapted to its environmental needs, if the demands are 'simple', the organism responds with a 'simple' system. If more complex requirements appear, the resulting organism is more complex. People often use the eye as an argument for intelligent design. This is a terrible example as we have a relatively complete history and good idea how it developed by looking at current organisms that have much more simple light recognition techniques (think...how do lights move towards the light, they clearly know its there but have no 'eye'). Research more deeply and there are infinitely more complex mechanisms in all forms of life to comprehend than the eye. However, survival of the fittest is the best explanation so far. 'Scientific validity' demands evidence. Proof is almost impossible, but I am yet to receive evidence for the 'yes' argument which doesn't rely on having faith/belief and lack of knowledge on the issue at hand. I'll stop here because I have work to do....I might rant on another occassion (this isn't exactly the only argument against intelligent design!)
We have no proof of Jesus ever living. Look outside the bible and much evidence is showing up that Jesus did not live. The bible was written by many, many men, hundreds of years after a Jesus story. The old testament was written by plenty of men, over a thousand year period for the Jewish people. Some of the authors of the new testament, are not known to us at all. There are forgeries in the bible of six Pauline letters which were written long after Paul died. This is not a very God inspired book. Why don't we see God? Maybe we know why.
Science does not deal in myths, the super-natural, angels
or miracles. They deal in truth and proof with plenty of evidence. The multidisiplinary teams that work together, help us all understand the processes which give up conclusions for the truth in science.
If anyone truly understands how evolution works they would know how the fabulous eye came to be. They would know that eyes evolved long before humans came on the scene. Evolution can be studied and when you see excately how it works you will know that it is a representation of truth.
Science suggests that through the ages life has created by evolution and survival of the fittest. Belief in god or an intelligent designer of life suggests that life was spontaneously created which conflicts with the theories in science(evolution and survival of the fittest).
Modern scientific theory can account for the creation of the universe, with verifiable evidence, without the need for an intelligent creator. Scientific theories are based on what we know not what we "think." While I do not necessarily discount the possibility of a Divine Principle, it would seem obvious that it lies within the bounds of rational science.
Science is based upon facts, evidence, and truths that are set in stone. Myself belief in God and Jesus, however no one can prove this beyond faith. Faith is strong but faith can not be considered a science. I have faith in the Lakers to win the Finals, but that is not a science.
Science has very structured jobs to do. Before something can be called a theory, it must have a preponderance of evidence supporting it, it must be repeatable and verifiable and must be able to predict. Creationism fails all those tests. Creationists reject much solid scientific evidence, fails to make any verifiable predictions, and uses conjecture rather than evidence. There is no valid comparison. Creationism should remain in the realm of theology, not science. That is where it belongs.
Science is a well-defined academic field - it is the development and validation of hypotheses using observable, empirical evidence. If a scientist believes that his idea is true, he must be able to point to some piece of evidence that supports that conclusion. Creationism isn't science. There is no evidence that one can point to that proves that supports the creationist theory. Creationism is certainly a valid viewpoint, and is absolutely one possible explanation for the origin of the universe, but it doesn't qualify as science because it doesn't conform to the methods that form the very foundation of what science is.
I believe that creationism cannot be considered a form of science. Creationism goes against the basic of ideas of how science is conducted. There is currently no hard evidence that would support creationism. Evidence and experiment is the basis of Science, which Creationism currently lacks. A part of science is the idea that without being able to test or find the proper evidence for a hypothesis that can be tested, it should be considered false.
To my understanding, creationism is more of a belief system related to biblical study than a hard science. If there were actually people trying to study this area using widely accepted scientific methods to prove theories, it would be a different story.