Arguments against "Intelligent Design"?

It's a shame that it was only the knee.

Morning Tambo! You know I love hip hop! But I think most people that do not do as you said and use the same old tired excusses of how it is not music it is to violent and so forth only say that cuz they have never really listened to hip hop. Or should I say real hip hop. It is hard to say the stuff you hear on the radio is real hip hop cuz we know it is not. By no means is soulja boy and his stupid dances hip hop. Lolli pop is not hip hop...Etc... I work in a very upscale office of which I am the only person of color I always have some music playing from my computer. The owners son came to my desk for some paperwork and the Black Album was playing. What More Can I Say Started to play and he knew the first few bars of the opening verse...I said boy do I play this that much that you know the words, he then tells me he has the grey album but really only likes that song cuz of the beat used on the grey album for it. I asked did you ever sit down and listen to the lyrics? He said no why would I it is just a song about some drug dealer :( I told him that was not what that song was about and he should give it a listen print out the lyrics and follow along. I doubt he ever did! I am also a very big fan of rock music which was hard due the fact I grew up in the "ghetto" and nobody listened to that "kind" of music. I was often called the darkest white girl in the projects cuz I would have hip hop on side A of the tape and rock on side B (yeah back in the day we used tapes LOL) My point is until you listen to the music and fully understand the words being said you can never make or pass judgement on a genre of music! (Blushing) You Know How We Do Sweetie!!!

I've read about Intelligent Design. It's subjective all right. I can't imagine that God would work in some drab cubicle drawing animal eyes on graph paper.

The fact is, science has not shown how life began (or arrived on) Earth. We no longer have either the evidence or the mathematical models to prove or even disprove any of the competing theories.

And "science" is more and more often presented as support for a political agenda. Scientific enquiry is seriously threatened by research funded by interested parties: oil companies, cigarette manufacturers, or fools like Al Gore and David Suzuki. Anyone who cares about truth should shudder in horror when they hear the absurd statement that "The science is settled".

No, intelligent design is a sleight of hand intellectually. Science does not have conflict with religious faith. The Roman Catholic Church has rejected Intelligent Design and creationism, and embraced honest science in evolution, quantum theory and the Big Bang.

You want intelligent design? I'll give you intelligent design. Five billion years ago, a family from the planet Rigel II came to the fledgling earth on vacation. Since Rigel 2 is very close to their sun and has an extremely hot climate, the family felt right at home and enjoyed their trip immensely. While they were here, they had a picnic. When they left, they left their scraps of food on the ground. these scraps were contaminated by bacteria from the mouths of the Rigellians. These bacteria evolved over time to become plants, fish, dinosaurs, wooly mammoths and eventually us.

The preceding story is entirely fiction. I made it up. It does, however, conform to archeological findings and is entirely consistent with scientific thought. It also contains the element of intelligent design. What it does not contain is any mention of God. The people trying to sneak creationism into the back door of the science classroom had better be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.

I believe that the role of God in the creation of the universe should be taught in the home and in the church. It has no place, however, in the science classroom. Since God exists in a reality beyond the detection of our senses or instruments, there is no way to validate His existence to a scientific certainty. Likewise, we can not validate love, hope or any other human factor. There are more things in heaven and earth than science can account for. Just because science can not validate God, that does not mean He does not exist.

Theologians should teach theology and scientists should teach science. To do otherwise invalidates both.

Best always

Brother Ron

That completely misunderstands/misrepresents the arguments of ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

And one problem is, they both saw what happened. Not a single person was alive to see how the universe began, how life began, the origin of genetic information, the supposed evolution of life on earth, the origin or language and morality, etc.

Believing in Neo-Darwinian Evolution requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. To accept that worldview, you must have faith in a professor or textbook—or yet another secondhand source and that secondhand source’s interpretation.

From what I've seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

When a creationist or ID proponent points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by random-chance processes and natural selection, they are often accused of invoking a "God of the gaps". Yet, when evolutionists are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by random-chance processes and natural selection, they invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!). Listen to Dawkins admit to his “faith”: http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpg

Evolution is often withheld from the rigors of the scientific method because it is considered sacrosanct by many scientists. Observations fit evolution no matter what, but evolution itself is never questioned.

The Darwin Party M.O.

• Step 1: Assume evolution.

• Step 2: Observe a fact.

• Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.

• Step 4: Attack, ridicule, and persecute anyone who doesn’t toe the Darwin Party line.

Please thats suppose to be a argument against Intelligent design. How about this information against evolution.

The kind of thinking that science does to day like find a fossil with modern human fossils and declare its the ancestor of man. Build up this huge theory about how man evolved and then 10 to 30 years later the Fossil is found to be false or fake. But still teach the theory is true.

Lets look at a few of those finds;

Such examples are "Lucy"—the skeleton of a nearly 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis. But yet Three scientists from the departments of anatomy, anthropology, and zoology at Tel Aviv University reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's.

The article's abstract admits that “This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.” The scientists concluded that this pretty much discounts these australopithecines as having any role in being a modern human ancestor.

Pilthdown man fragments of a skull and Jawbone Now found to be faked. It was a lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man.

Nebraska man made up from the tooth of a extinct pig.

- "Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons . . . ." Eugene Dubois, "On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus," Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

The skulls of Peking man are considered by many experts to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man.

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis have recently been discovered. They show that this animal clearly had apelike proportions(h) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).

h. Donald C. Johanson et al., "New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania," Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205-209.

The fossils with dinosaur prints and human footprints inside the dinosaur prints. Of course because they do not want to acknowledge it they just say their fake or some one created them. Which shows the bias that Science has.

So considering all this evidence and that they have faked and continue to falsly classify them as evidence for evolution, no the theory is false..

Are you serious? That argument sucks.

#1There were two people who were there for that event, and witnessed it.

#2 ID supporters do not invoke the supernatural for every natural occurrence, just the one that obviously seems to point towards design.

#3Clearly the most plausible explanation would be a baseball bat wielded by another human being. Our origins are not that clear.

#4 You could reproduce that experiment and cause that same wound in the knee. The same cannot be said for abiogenesis.

Logical Fallacy:

False Analogy

Here's Judge Jones' conclusion from the Dover, PA school board case where ID tried to challenge evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v...

It's also a very good argument against ID.

an assault in real time with a baseball bat is analogous to microevolution, but not to macroevolution. no one was there, the force supposedly acting (god) cannot be compared to a human whom we have witnessed assault the intelligent design speaker.

i believe in evolution, i just think there is room for doubt and discussion on that which happenened an eternity before we were born. afterall no one can be sure

It is a shame that you are not interested in asking a sincere question.

This limits intelligent design to a very narrow band as well. I see no problems with the progression of 'evolution' guided by an intelligent sentient being.

Yes, that is indeed the most effective argument I've ever seen against "Intelligent Design". In fact, I think I'm going to stop by the sporting goods store on my way home from work to buy a new Louisville Slugger. I want to start using this argument at social gatherings!