• God Clearly states differently

    If anyone were to read the Bible, they would see that God clearly and decisively gives the step by step process of how the universes actually came into being, and they would see that it was not by a freak accidet involving evolution, which makes almost as much sense as throwing a box of scrabble up into the air and in=t falling down and landing as the Odyssey.

  • Origin of the Species; Darwin, Charles

    The work speaks for itself. There is simply no justification for belief in so-called, "Intelligent Design." Why should I? Darwin, followed by sensible people everywhere have said all that needs to be said. The notion that God or any supreme being of any set of beliefs can possibly refute the facts is silly. Ask God if you don't believe me. He knows the truth and the truth is not, "Intelleigent Design."

  • Yes, ID Isn't Science

    Yes, the two are mutually exclusive because one is the science that explores the inerrelatedness of all life on earth, while the other is an unsubstantiated claim that we were created; essentially Creationism in a lab coat. The link provided is very telling. The very first sentence reads," Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."

    Let me requote the important part,"...Seek evidence of design in nature." They freely admit that they aren't following the evidence wherever it leads, they are looking for evidence that confirms beliefs they already hold; this is not science.

    To address the question a little more direction, they are mutually exclusive because the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has a selection mechanism that doesn't require intelligence or design, while ID seeks to inject itself into the growing body of scientific knowledge.

  • Evolution is not intelligent, and even if it were, it is a horrible and inefficient design.

    The process of evolution involves random mutations which, if beneficial, aid the organism in reproducing and generally succeeding in life. If they are bad mutations, the opposite occurs. Richard Dawkins explains this with the example of the eye here far better than I am capable of: http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=Nwew5gHoh3E.
    Evolution is not structured. It is not logical. It is inefficient and takes a long time, but it is reliable at producing organisms of increasing complexity.

    I would like to point out that evolution does not come under intelligent design. If you were to intelligently design a random process and be unaware of the results, then you are not designing anything; you are leaving it up to chance what is designed. This would be like designing a building based entirely off incremental rolls of a dice and never being allowed to undo a roll or retake it, and you were never permitted to finish rolling. Such inefficiency of "design" is exactly what should be expected from evolution, as each stage is based on the last and present favourable traits. Poor design is everywhere from the Laryngeal Nerve and the appendix to genetic diseases. If life was designed, then this would not be observed. Evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive as they clearly conflict. Design is a ground-up approach while Evolution is incremental and the idea that evolution is a form of incremental design is laughable. Also, a deity of some description starting the universe is not intelligent design as it applies to the biological world (though it is equally laughable).

  • Evolution excludes intelligent design.

    Evolution is random since there are random genetic variations. If those random genetic variations prove useful then those variations have higher chance of surviving. For example if extremely good sight is needed for some species but they lack it. That doesn't mean that those animals will start to see better in generations because random genetic variations might not appear and specie could go extinct or try to manage without good sight.

  • Evolution suggests design.

    There is no reason to believe that Evolution by necessity eliminates the idea of Intelligent Design. On the contrary, it is us humans and the conflict between science and religion that has caused this divide between the two concepts.

    Many (atheists and agnostics) who believe in evolution argue that evidence suggests that there is no design in the equation. Does this however preclude the possibility of a supreme being designing evolution and the various principles by which our known universe operates?

    Evolution is a rather structured process which seems to follow some kind of logic. More importantly the complexity and diversity of life, by random chance does not seem as probably as many suggest. This is especially true if you look at man, and consciousness.

  • Religion is unclear

    Look, I'm all for evolution. I believe the story of creation is yet another myth with no purpose other than to provide moral guidance. But its easy to see how someone can appreciate both Intelligent Design and Evolution at once.

    First, it says G-d created life in 7 days, but how long are his days? You can't judge it by Earth standards. Let's say 1 day is a billion years, then we'd only be on the 4th day. Evolution could be the tool for intelligent design.

    Second, evolution relies on two impossible things to happen in order to function correctly. It requires that every organism on the planet, from a microbe to weed to an elephant, have a ridiculously powerful need to continue existing and to pass existence on to something else. We are all insignificant speck that will never have any impact whatsoever on the universe. We are all a simple series of chemical reactions and electrical pulses, nothing more.M So it's not unreasonable to think that "intelligent design" just means that we were all given this impossible addiction to pure existence.

  • Well not Necessarily

    Since you didn't ascribe the phrase "Intelligent Design" to a particular religion then it is certainly plausible to say these two entities are inclusive. However, since something brought about the onset of the evolutionary process then logically speaking; the intelligent designer would of had to beget evolution or he would cease to be the designer.

  • No, not at all.

    Two events are mutually exclusive if the occurrence of one event precludes the occurrence of the other. However, it is possible for the theory of evolution and the concept of intelligent design to both be true. For example, a deity could have established the laws of the natural universe, setting in motion evolution. Therefore, the evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

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