Amazon.com Widgets

Is there scientific evidence for intelligent design?

  • DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. – Bill Gates

    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” -Charles Darwin-

    Well it has been demonstrated. Darwin’s theory was formed on the assumption that the cell was just a blob of protoplasm. But science has discovered that it is much much more.

    Teaching evolution is teaching 19th century science. Come into the 21st century because science is passing you by.

    The elucidation of DNA’s information-bearing properties raised the question of the ultimate origin of the information in both DNA and proteins.
    Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly.

    The chances of everything just evolving by chance is about the same as the chances of taking a box of scrabble tiles and dumping them on the floor and having them spell out an intelligible paragraph. Intelligent design just makes much more scientific sense.

  • Of some sort

    Someone or something had to write the laws of nature. And it is within mankind to need some sort of God. Exactly who he is may not be able to be proved but the existence is very real.
    Why people think that there is no God or God factor is beyond me. There is something like an intelligent designer out there. Science and the laws therein are the evidence of such.

  • Yes, there is scientific evidence for intelligent design.

    Think back to the beginning of life, back to the primordial soup of organic compounds. These organic compounds over time eventually formed a molecule that could replicate. The primordial gases produced a slurry of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. How did we go from a few amino acids to that first fully replicating protein? Some would say random chance. Therein lies the problem. A minimum of thirty-two amino acids must link up in order to form this first replication protein. The odds of this protein forming by random chance are astronomically thin. Ten to the power of forty-one. To put these odds in perspective, if you took all the protein found in all the rain forests of the world and dissolved it all down into an amino acid soup, it would still remain vastly improbable for a thirty-two-amino-acid chain to form. In fact, it would take five thousand times that amount to form one of these chains. Five thousand rainforests. So again how do we go from a slurry of amino acids to that first replicator? Now consider quantum evolution. Not only does this provide valid support for intelligent design, but it also answers the fundamental question of who the designer is. First we must understand that once matter is broken down to the subatomic level, then the classical laws of the universe begin to erode. The Wave-particle duality theory states that electrons, protons, and neutrons act as both waves AND particles. Moreover, they have the potential to be either a wave or a particle. Which brings us to the next point. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg states that nothing is certain until it is observed. This has been proven true at the subatomic level, in the classic double-slit test. Place two concrete walls one behind the other. In one wall have two slits, and keep the other a solid slab. If you took a gun and sprayed bullets at the two slits in the concrete wall, you would get a certain pattern on the wall behind the slits, looking like dots directly behind the slits. Call this Diffraction Pattern A. Next, instead of bullets, shine a big spotlight on the wall, with light passing through both slits. Because light travels in waves, you would get a different pattern on the wall, looking like light and dark bands across back wall. This patterning is caused by the light waves passing through the right and left windows interfering with each other. Letls call this Interference Pattern B. Now take an electron gun and shoot a single line of electrons at the double slits. What pattern would you get? Since you're shooting electrons like bullets, you would guess Diffraction Pattern A, however in laboratory tests you get the second. Interference Pattern B. So you would think this means electrons move like wave. Yes, however, only when no one actually witnesses the electrons passing through the slits. In another experiment, scientists placed a little clicker at one of the slits. It beeped whenever it sensed an electron passing through the slit, measuring or observing the passage of an electron past the detector. When the clicker was turned on, the pattern on the back wall immediately changed into Diffraction Pattern A. The simple act of measuring changed the pattern. Just as Heisenberg predicted. You may now ask, "since atoms make up the world we know, touch, and feel, where is the line between the phantom world of quantum mechanics and our world of real objects?" Again, the only way to collapse potential is to have something measure it. Such measuring tools are constantly present in the environment. It can be one particle bumping into another, a photon of light hitting something. Constantly the environment is measuring the subatomic world. Collapsing potential into hard reality. So the three points are that subatomic particles exist in a quantum state of potential, it takes a measuring tool to collapse that potential, and it is the environment that constantly performs those measurements to fix our reality. Now, what is DNA? Nothing but a protein machine, correct? Producing all the basic building blocks of cells, of bodies. Is DNA not merely genetic codes locked in chemical bonds? And what breaks these bonds, turning genes on and off? The movement of electrons and protons. And these subatomic particles obey the rules of the quantum world. So if a proton could be in two places-A or B- turning a gene on or off- Which place would it be found? Since it has the potential to be in both places, then it is in both places. The gene is both on and off. Until something measures it. And what measures it? The environment. And the environment of a gene is what? The DNA molecule itself. At its most fundamental level, the living cell acts as its own quantum-measuring device. And it is this constant cellular measurement that is the true engine of evolution. It explains how mutations are not random. Why evolution occurs at a pace faster than attributable to random chance. In a controlled laboratory setting, a researcher produced a strain of E. coli bacteria that could not digest lactose. Then he spread a thriving population onto a growth plate where the only food source was lactose. Science would suggest that, unable to digest the lactose, the bacteria would starve and die. That is exactly what happened to ninety-eight percent of the bacteria. But two percent continued to thrive just fine. They had spontaneously mutated a gene to digest lactose in one generation. This goes against all probability of randomness. It's astonishing, but can you explain it now, using the three quantum principles? Especially if I tell you that the beneficial mutation required only a single proton to move from one place to another? If the proton could be in both places, then quantum theory says the proton was in both places. So the gene was both mutated and not mutated. Held in the potential between both. Then the cell acting as a quantum-measuring tool, would force the DNA to collapse on one side of the fence or the other. To mutate or not to mutate. And because the cell is living and influenced by its environment, it tilted the scale, defying randomness to produce the beneficial mutation. What scientists now call adaptive mutation. The environment influenced the cell, the cell influenced the DNA, and the mutation occurred that benefited the cell. All driven by the mechanics of the quantum world. It is our own cells that are directing evolution, responding to the environment and collapsing potential in DNA to better fit that environment. Darwinian natural selection then kicked in to preserve these modifications. But more importantly, quantum mechanics explains how life's first spark started. Remember the improbability of that first replicating protein forming out of the primordial soup? In the quantum would, randomness is taken out of the equation. The first replicating protein formed because it was order out of chaos. Its ability to measure and collapse quantum potential superseded the randomness of merely bumping and jostling that had been going on in the primordial soup. Life started because it was a better quantum measuring tool. This is science's evidence for intelligent design. We are our own designers.

  • A Single Cell is ENOUGH evidence. I'm a Biologist.

    A single cell is more complicated than a space shuttle. Life had to be designed. As an agnostic biologist, I can safely tell you that there is more evidence for Intelligent Design than there is for Life-came-by-chance Abiogenesis and developed through Chaos Evolution. Chance and Refined Chaos through natural selection can not assemble a space shuttle. Life as we know it, is EXTREMELY delicate and its successful production requires EXTREMELY balanced factors of homeostasis. Chance cannot bring about such bring about such delicate balance even if it took billions of years. As to question of whether the intelligent designer is god of a particular religion is a matter of strong faith.

    Side-Notes:
    As an ex-atheist with many atheist friends, I know that most atheists, in their resentment and bitterness of theistic religion and God, dogmatically refuse to acknowledge the evidence that strongly advocates Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design need not be even be religious, but if Intelligent Design were acknowledged in science, it would give the theists a foothold in culture while the atheists keep a weaker sway over culture. That makes some atheists and most anti-theists scared and try ridiculous means to extinguish the evidence with straw-mans, ad-homenins and childishly logical fallacies. Western New Atheists just badly want the upper-hand association with science and thus they will go to any lengths to prove their scientific-ness despite the fact that atheism has strong religious association (e.G. Buddhism, and Indic Brahmanism)

    How do I know all these things about atheists? Because I was one of those atheists. But I decided to grow up, put on my science glasses the right way and think objectively about my biology job and and thus take an agnostic and more I.D. Perspective of science. Dear Atheists, I'm sorry for my brutal honesty, logic and faith-less reason. Atheists hate it when "their own tools" (as they'd like to imagine), are used against them.

  • Underlying intelligence that does not necessarily design

    I sometimes believe that even though life has almost certainly evolved over millions of years, that there is an underlying intelligence pervading the cosmos; probably at the subatomic level. Possibly even smaller. What I don't like however, is this being linked to religion or the so called 'God.' Everything has an origin, which proves original intelligence.

  • Everything has been designed...FACT!

    Everything designed has a designer. Blind, random, chance & unconscious nothingness cannot plan, design or create a single atom, let alone the universe. It is those scientists who believe in a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life who are men of BLIND FAITH. The believer in the God of creation is the rationalist.

  • Quantum computing during mitosis

    During mitosis, millions of instructions are executed in exactly the right sequence so that each new set of cells 'knows' exactly what role it will play in the human body and also exactly what information to pass on to successive cells so that the complete human body is created. The time in which all these instructions are 'programmed' into the creation of the human body is comparable to the the most complex arrays of parallel-processing computers available today - and all they can do is create 'virtual' creatures which only live as long as the electricity supply.

  • Just cos lol

    Pretty self explanatory, so yea agree with me lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol olol ololo o lolo ololo solo lo l olol ol ol lolol ololololoolollolololo l ol ol olol ol ol ol lo lo lololololo lo l ol ol ol ol ol ol ol olool ol

  • Just cos lol

    Pretty self explanatory, so yea agree with me lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol olol ololo o lolo ololo solo lo l olol ol ol lolol ololololoolollolololo l ol ol olol ol ol ol lo lo lololololo lo l ol ol ol ol ol ol ol olool ol

  • An instruction manual:

    How a believer in intelligent design (ID from now on) could argue with people believing in the theory of evolution (ToE from now on) and prevail.

    Let us begin with a few methods that will fail.

    1) Repetition. Just because you state the same thing over and over doesn't make it more or less true.

    2) Guilt by association or name calling. Refering to ToE as a cult or it's supporters as stupid and blind counts for nothing. Neither will pairing it with atheism or listing unpopular people who believe in it. In fact, try to avoid religion. It may sounds strange given the subject, but you won't convince many with references to holy books or personal experiences.

    3) Laying all the burden of proof on the other side. To me, this is to surrender. "I can't find anything that supports my ideas. But you can't answer all the questions either". Accept that ID has the more remarkable claim and thus require more proof. Also, don't misrepresent evidence against you or take quotes out of context.

    4) Don't focus on how unlikely life without design is. If you roll a common dice ten times and get 2-1-6-6-5-6-1-4-2-4, then it doen't matters how unlikely that result was, (1 in 60466176). Once it has happened, it has. Only where intelligent lifeforms appear can it be noticed and understood how likely or unlikely that was to happen.

    Then what WILL work? Using the scientific method! Start by finding a prediction that will strengthen your case. I've created a bogus one as an example: "We don't find mutations appealing (and thus a nice smile or a beautiful eye could not have developed without design)".

    Why is this a suitable prediction? It's a bold claim, fairly easy to test and it leaves your own arguments vulnerable, thus making it a strong piece of evidence if it holds up.

    If a bunch of biologists worked on this statement for a few years and couldn't find a single counterexample, then ToE might be having problems and if someone also produced some supporting evidence for ID, it might even be elevated to become a scientific theory. On the other side, if they found a mutation that was pleasing to the eye, then the ToE would gain strength.

    Then why was the prediction I choose bogus? Because it's NOT a prediction. We know plenty of mutations that many find hot, such as red hair. This however has a limited value as evidence for ToE, because just as there wasn't much to marvel about with the result of the dices, you need to predict something prior to knowing it and then confirm it with experiments. It's done the other way when forming hypotheses.

    This is the process of challenges and predictions that all scientific theories have gone through. Many are those that have tried to find a weak spot in the body of evidence that supports ToE, but it has prevailed and sometimes even been improved.

    Good luck.

  • No there is not.

    Firstly, intelligent design may seem convincing to some, but when it comes down to doing the research, there is in fact not much evidence supporting this theory. There are several different types of evidence used to support evolution which makes it much more realistic than intelligent design. The sources of evidence for evolution are fossils, biogeography, anatomy, embryology, and DNA. Fossils prove evidence by the depth of the layers of rock giving us the relative age of the fossil, the types of fossils found in the same layer tell us where the fossil originated from, and much more. Biogeography is the study of the past and present geological distributions of organisms. It supports evolution by showing that specific species originate in different areas of the world. Anatomy shows that organisms came from a common ancestor as they have similar structural elements but with a different use. There is also evidence from embryology showing that different species had many similarities in their embryo. Also DNA proves evolution by studying the genetic patterns to determine how closely related two organisms are. Thus, it is clear that there is a lot of evidence proving evolution making it very believable, but when it comes to intelligent design, what convincing evidence is there? There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design. It is all based on religion and faith. Thus, compared to evolution, the evidence behind intelligent design is merely not strong enough.

    Furthermore, intelligent design is a religious theory which may cause controversies with many other religions. Some students may not feel offense at all, but others who are highly religious may have major problems with learning something that is in conflict with their personal belief. Teaching this controversy would make evolution seem like it is simply a theory and not a fact. However, evolution has tons of evidence to prove it. Intelligent design is a non-scientific concept which shows that it has no place in a science class. Intelligent design should be viewed as a religious point of view where people would have the choice to believe it or not. However, teaching it may have different affects on different people. Of course, a student does not have to believe something to learn it, such as evolution. Not every student may believe in evolution. Recently, in February there was a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham about evolution and intelligent design. In all of Bill Nye’s points, he stated that “because the scientific evidence says so” and for Ken Ham, he stated that “because the bible says so”. What Ken Ham said can cause an argument coming from people who don’t follow the bible. Bill Nye seemed much strong throughout this debate as his evidence was very believable and Ken Ham only based his evidence on the bible, which is just like saying “a bird has wings just because it has wings”.

    Lastly, intelligent design does not explain the biggest question relating to biology: how did life come to exist?

  • No there is none.

    There is no scientific or tangible evidence that proves intelligent design. It is merely a religion a personal belief. Think about evolution? There is evidence for evolution from fossils, bio-geography, anatomy, embryology and DNA. What evidence is there for intelligent design? Only the bible? Well not everyone follows the bible.

  • There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design.

    The entire argument for intelligent design is contrary to science. The scientific evidence shows that evolution is correct. Intelligent design is based upon religion and faith. Intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is not science, but religion, and there is a separation of church and state.

  • No, there is not scientific evidence for intelligent design.

    No, I believe that there is not any significant scientific evidence for intelligent design. While religious people often look for ways to prove that God exists, especially in the discussion of intelligent design, there has been no substantial evidence of intelligent design. There has however been documented evidence of evolution of a species, which rather easily disproves most of the ideas behind the support of any evidence of intelligent design.

  • No, no evidence.

    Now, science has proven that there is a backbone for existence, DNA that crosses over from animal to animal, from protozoa to mouse to dinosaur to human to Anemone. That being said, the evidence that believers use to justify intelligent design can also be used to justify evolution. It's a test of faith, either way, and it's something that we can talk about, and argue over, but something that we just can't say either way for certain.

  • No - it has to be based on faith

    Intelligent design is a fascinating concept of our world and how we got here, but there is really no evidence to support current theories of creationists. The people that do believe in intelligent design have to hold to faith in their religion to make it true. That rubric does not work for most scientists.

  • It isn't science

    Intelligent Design isn't science, and its claims cannot be proven by scientific methods. Some of its proponents may say otherwise, but the evidence they have produced never passes the test-- for example, so-called irreducible complexity is, generally speaking, reducible, by considering the fact that the function of various organs is not fixed as they evolve.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.