Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Which has the better argument?

Many people seem to love "Expelled Exposed," but never get the other side of the story:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/expelled_expo...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/the_ncse_expo...

And so many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet. The God of the Bible is just one possible candidate. Some creationists (like those at Answers In Genesis) don’t like the ID movement because they say it divorces the Creator from the creation.

Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most famous for using the design argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription, a newspaper article, or a computer program, we know there was an intelligent agent behind that information.

And the thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, data fraud analysis, and SETI. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role. In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.”

The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

Design theorists often employ several methods of design detection, including specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and Bayesian probability approaches.

Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?...

Here is a growing list of scientists who signed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-do...

Here is a helpful reference guide with the Neo-Darwinian view next to the Intelligent Design view: http://www.arn.org/docs/Redeeming%20Darwin%20Refer...

Many people have the problem of not making a distinction between the evidence and the implications. ID may have unsavory theological implications, and so many people simply reject it or dismiss it as religion. But implications don't decide the truth of theories—evidence does. As Dr. Stephen Meyer has said, “The evidence is one thing; the implications are another. We want you to settle the discussion on the basis of the evidence.”

Dr. Stephen Meyer, “I think that the key thing that many folks in the media and many people in the general public miss, and I think this has been a somewhat unhelpful aspect of the debate, is that they have confused the idea of evidence with the idea of implication. The evidence for design is as I said this nanotechnology that we’re finding in the cell, this information embedded in DNA, for example, but the implication of the discussion does raise larger philosophical issues – and that’s true for Darwinian evolution as much as it is for its now chief competitor, the theory of intelligent design. Richard Dawkins has said that Darwinism has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

To answer, simple: evolution.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have no argument other than "God did it". The vast majority of creationists spend their time trying to disprove or discredit evolution rather than building a scientific case for their beliefs.

"First I want to say this: that even most scientists will admit "that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Why? because it has not been proven."

Actually, evolution itself is an confirmed, observable fact. The theory aspect of it is how it operated.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics/The Law of Entropy states that everything tends toward disorder. This is a law that Scientists discovered and know to be true."

Yes, that holds in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, and it has an huge external power generator.

"Also, if evolution is true, where did the first cell come from? Not to mention, the earth, the sun, our entire solar system, the Milky Way Galexy, and the universe as a whole. I somehow doubt that the big bang could create all of that by chance. And even if it did, what/who caused the big bang? These are all questions that evolutionist scientists can't answer. I find these questions to be to big for me to believe these scientists. There are, however, Scientists that believe in ID and they can answer all of these questions."

The theory of evolution does not make statements of either the origins of life or the origin of the universe. Those would abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory.

"I honestly believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design."

No it doesn't. The evidence for evolution is well documented around the world. You only need to look it up. The "evidence" for Creationism is the Bible and appeal to emotion argument of "look around you, it's evident".

"People say that the similarities in different animals are reason to believe in evolution. But if their was an intelligent designer of the world, it would make sense that they would use some of the same types of designs in different animals."

Irrelevant

"If you look at how buildings and bridges are made, they both have similar things in them. They often are both made with triangles. Why? because they help strengthen the structure. They also both use similar metals and other materials because they work well. Why would an intelligent designer not use the same principle when creating all the different animals in the world?"

Why do humans have a vestigial organ that pretty much gets infected and can kill you?

Why do our eyes have a blind spot on them due to our blood veins being backwards, when squids have perfect vision?

Why do we have little toes?

Why are some human babies born without faces? (Treacher Collins Syndrome)

Why are some human babies born with tail bones?

Why do whales have small leg bones?

Spending time on this is, well -- pointless.

It's like arguing over how dinosaurs became extinct.

While there's ample amount of ways to discredit each side, there's insufficient evidence to prove either one.

Intelligent Design and God:

- Aside from faith, where's the confirming evidence of a higher power/architect (God).

- What events could have let to the creation of God?

- If God is all-powerful and supremely intelligent, why did it take multiple attempts to create semi-functional humans instead of barbaric animals (based on neanderthal remains and assuming that the slate was wiped at least twice by an ice-age and then flood).

Evolution:

- Since everything either exists as a component of something larger or requires energy to be created, then what basis exists for the big-bang theory?

- If a giraffe can evolve a longer neck, then why can't pandas simply tweak their diet to avoid extinction?

- Why is it that the only concrete record of drastic evolution is that which has occurred in humans or caused by humans (controlled breeding, hormones, etc.)?

There are no answers to these questions. Sure, some loose examples (based on speculation and theory) can be pointed out -- but absolute, concrete evidence doesn't exist.

Different beliefs and ideas benefit different people. It doesn't make them stupid or ignorant.

The continued search for answers should never be abandoned, and hopefully, one day, we'll learn the answers. Until then, there's no point in arguing over it or discrediting either side.

Get a hold of the book "The greatest show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It is filled with lots of examples. But you won't be able to read it by tomorrow. Off the top of my head there was actually something on the developement of the eye (and had something to do with the number of cones in the eye eg 2 or 3 cones in the back of the eye with colour perception. I have actually forgotten the main details now sadly. I also remember a story about the giraffe and a nerve in the neck which travels a long, weird way. The reason being the general structures were there from earlier ancestors and it has just "made do" with the nerve there and continued on. Its kind of like renovating a house. When you change something in the house, you do it a bit over time, changing little bits, but you don't knock the house down to start renovating, you use what is there and do the best you can to work around them. That is like what happens in evolution, you have to use what is there, you can't go back to the drawing board and start again.

To even say that there is an argument sets up that they are intellectually equal and need to be proved or disproved.

There is the Theory of Evolution which has much scientific fact and observations.

And then there is Intelligent Design which has no backing in observation.

Theories can be used to predict future behaviours and yield valuable insights into the workings of nature.

ID has neither of those things.

ID however has a mass of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty behind it and a rigid unchanging dogma.

The Theory of Evolution has none of those things.

So there really is no argument between the two except in the minds of those trying to peddle intellectually dishonest books and morally bankrupt doctrine.

Why evolution is the better argument:

1) Evolution is based on observed, unquestionable phenomena that everyone can see. It is also based on the scientific method, giving it a unified and objective approach to investigation. ID, on the other hand, is based on observed phenomena that already have a significant explanation, but imposes one more condition to the state--an unprovable and undefined (so they say) "creator". The rule of Ockham's razor makes ID unnecessary, superfluous.

2) ID, as regocnized by an overwhelming majority of scientists, is a repackaging of creationism, which has no basis in science, and very little foundation in reality.

3) The original intent of the ID movement was not scientific research to support its claims, but the wedge strategy, which "...describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God." (link--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) This is a dishonest approach to any scientific endeavor.

4) The only documentation I've seen that tries to make ID a scientific endeavor is by changing the definition of science. Doing so, in the creationists/ID definition of science, would also allow alchemy, tea leaf reading, astrology, intelligent falling, etc., legitimate scientific endeavors.

I could go on, but this list is sufficient for now.

Are the two necessarily are in conflict? I believe in strongly in scientific inquiry and evolution, and also that everything on earth was everything was designed with intention and purpose. My intellect informs the former, and my faith informs the latter. I definitely don't advocate teaching intelligent design in schools, as it doesn't have a scientific basis and institutionalizes belief in a higher power (which I also believe is wrong), but that doesn't preclude me or anyone from speculating about what got the evolutionary ball rolling in the first place. Scientists should continue to search for answers about the origins of the universe, and people of faith should continue to examine their beliefs. I like the question posed by the original poster and the spirit of dialogue it engenders. I hope people will keep the discussion civilized. Belief in a higher power does not necessarily equal stupidity (though I will agree that it does, unfortunately, bring out fear and willful ignorance in certain groups of religious people).

As far as I can tell ID has no argument apart from 'A supernatural being did it'. If all you need is that argument then ID seems to win hands down.

However if, like me, you want something with real evidence (not the Bible as remember ID is apparently not creationism (when it suits them)) then Evolution has the better argument.

A theory (in the Scientific sense not common use) that can be peer reviewed and modified to better fit the current evidence has a far stronger argument than just 'God did it'.

scooterbug,

There’s no way to evaluate the merits of intelligent design as a scientific theory, because it does not make any testable predictions (which is part of the definition of a scientific theory). That means that not only does it currently have no evidence, it can’t ever have any evidence even in principle because there’s no way to test for it. There are no arguments that favor intelligent design, there are only arguments AGAINST evolution, and a suggestion that we arbitrarily relegate anything about biology we DON’T understand to an intelligent designer. It is a ‘theory’ based on nothing, whereas evolution is a theory based on 150 years worth of investigation and libraries full of evidence.

Rev Albert Einstein:

Quoting a couple people who said things that SOUND like they MIGHT contain SOME doubt about evolution does not erase 150 years of painstaking experiments, calculations, publications, field work, observation, modeling, sample-collecting, data gathering, thinking, writing, re-writing, debate, and analysis. Sorry, but you’ve got some catch-up work to do. And by the way, Hawking’s quote is not anti-evolution at all. He is merely pointing out something that scientists have been trying to get through to people like you for a long time now, and that is that science does not imply anything one way or the other about the existence of God.

Angela:

I’m glad you see the amazing beauty in nature, as do I, but beauty doesn’t imply anything about design.

KAL:

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what science is. Evolution does NOT rely on an assumption that experiments can eliminate the supernatural. Evolution, and the rest of science, merely admits that the supernatural (in the way you’re using the word) is not something we can test. Science does not deny its existence altogether, as you claim, it simply admits that since science is all about testable ideas, there’s no way we can learn about the supernatural through science. No credible scientist has ever made the claim that intelligent design can be ruled out. We just object to an idea that is non-science being called science.

Sammy Samantha:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT say that “everything tends toward disorder,” nor does it say anything that even remotely resembles this. Order arises from disorder all the time. It happens every time it snows, and little snowflakes with complex patterns arrange themselves from water molecules randomly floating through the sky. Or every time a gemstone, like the one in your favorite necklace, crystallizes. Or every time a seed grows into a flower. If “everything tends towards disorder,” how is it that nature creates order from disorder EVERY SINGLE DAY? You’ve probably watched it happen yourself! You also state, “If I cannot believe that a chalk drawing was made by chance, then there is no way that I can possibly believe that the human body or any other animal was created by chance.” Unfortunately for your argument, scientists do not claim that animals arose by chance… I’m not sure where you got that idea from. They claim that animals arose from processes that are governed and guided by physical laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, that are the very OPPOSITE of chance. You can’t dismiss a scientific theory by restating it incorrectly, and then saying that you can’t imagine how it could have happened that way.

Angela D: ROCK ON. I believe in God, too. At least there’s one other person in this world who understands that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, and also that belief in a higher power does not justify labeling non-science as science.

Questioner: None of the statistical methods you speak of can truly distinguish intelligent design from the natural occurrence of complex patterns. Those arguments are built on a house of cards... the ID proponents’ “methods” would also probably conclude that crystals with complex chemical zonations are intelligently designed, when in fact, you can watch them growing in nature with no intelligent guide at all. ID has, to date, not provided a single testable prediction, which is the hallmark of a scientific idea. All it does is argue that any patterns in nature we don’t understand yet should be designated to a designer about which we can know nothing.

Edit:

HiEv- Well said!!!!!

>Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Which has the better argument?

It's arguments, plural, and those in favor of evolution FAR outweigh the few in favor of intelligent design.

>I saw the documentary "Expelled"

Well I guess now you'll have to watch the documentary Jesus Camp in order to balance it out. ;P

>This is your chance to say what you think and why.

As stated above, I agree with most of the principles of evolutionary theory as it is normally stated.

The real extent of the evidence in favor of evolution is much too vast for one person to write down or for one answer to contain (I believe there is a character limit on answers, although I don't know what it is exactly). At the most basic level, it's just plain common sense that if one kind of organism can survive better than another and that if organisms pass on their traits to their offspring, then natural selection will work evolution will occur. And even if it wasn't common sense, it still has strong support from the field of computer science, where digital organisms living in simulated environments have shown a remarkable ability to adapt. In a very real sense, it would take some kind of new, unknown force in order to PREVENT life forms from evolving! The record of evolution of life on Earth is also relatively well established, based on hundreds of thousands of fossils of various species from various time periods in the Earth's history. We can easily match up cow hooves with pig hooves, mammal skeletons with reptile skeletons, snail DNA with apple DNA. The huge number of similarities seen between different species, both living and extinct, and the ways in which the similarities diverge as you look farther away in time or farther along different evolutionary branches, are extremely strong indicators of evolution having taken place, and no other theory as to the origin of modern species accounts for these observations with anything more logical than 'But that's just the way God decided to do it!' In addition, we have even observed evolution during our own history, from the selective breeding of many plant and animal species to the quickly mutating infectious microorganisms that medical science is constantly trying to keep up with. The fact of the matter is, modern evolutionary theory is the direct result of the combined observations in several different scientific fields and thus has a very solid foundation of logic and evidence behind us. For a more in-depth evaluation, you can see the following links:

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

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

>Also, if there is some other side to this arguement, other than Evolution and Intelligent design, I am fascinated and would love to hear it.

I don't see that very many other positions are even logically possible. And even if there are some, those that do exist are probably so unreasonable that in the end they aren't very interesting anyway and probably almost nobody follows them.

First I want to say this: that even most scientists will admit that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Why? because it has not been proven.

For me, I tend to lean more towards Intelligent Design (ID). Here are a few reasons.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics/The Law of Entropy states that everything tends toward disorder. This is a law that Scientists discovered and know to be true.

An example of this law would be that the universe is on its way to destruction. The stars will eventually burn out, but before they do that, they'll expand and consume the planets in their solar system. If there are any planets left after the stars expand, they won't last long because their sun will go out and cease to give off the necessary light, heat, and energy in general that life needs to survive.

Another simpler example would be to take a watch apart, and put all the seperate pieces into a single plastic bag. If you do nothing to the bag or the seperate pieces, nothing will happen. If you try shaking the bag trying to get the pieces to fall into line and start working together, they will do the exact opposite and will eventually be ground up.

Another example: If you see a drawing on the sidewalk, you don't assume that it was by chance that the drawing appeared there. You assume that some child used chalk, pressed the chalk against the pavement, applying just the right amount of pressure and moved the chalk to the appropriate places to create the picture that they wanted. Another thing you will notice about this drawing is that unless the child keeps coming back to fix and touch-up his/her drawing, it will either be washed away by the rain, or worn away by the simple laws of nature.

Chalk drawings are not very complex, and even they can't be created by chance. Now think about the complexity of even a single cell. The human cell has millions upon billions of complex parts that all have to work perfectly together or the cell dies off. The cell is only a very small microscopic part of the whole organism. There are millions, if not billions of cells in the human body. Every cell is designed and put together in such a way to make the whole body work. If certain parts of the body doesn't work, the body usually gets sick and dies, or it has to find some way to make up for its loss.

If I cannot believe that a chalk drawing was made by chance, then there is no way that I can possibly believe that the human body or any other animal was created by chance. It's common sense.

Also, if evolution is true, where did the first cell come from? Not to mention, the earth, the sun, our entire solar system, the Milky Way Galexy, and the universe as a whole. I somehow doubt that the big bang could create all of that by chance. And even if it did, what/who caused the big bang? These are all questions that evolutionist scientists can't answer. I find these questions to be to big for me to believe these scientists. There are, however, Scientists that believe in ID and they can answer all of these questions.

I honestly believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design.

People say that the similarities in different animals are reason to believe in evolution. But if their was an intelligent designer of the world, it would make sense that they would use some of the same types of designs in different animals.

If you look at how buildings and bridges are made, they both have similar things in them. They often are both made with triangles. Why? because they help strengthen the structure. They also both use similar metals and other materials because they work well. Why would an intelligent designer not use the same principle when creating all the different animals in the world?