Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.

Next question in Religion in Society

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


You are seeing 57 Comments on this Argument. See all 1083 Comments on this Question.
Regarding Argument
Public Schools Are Not Supposed To Promote Religion
- From AUSCS
No Side
By Americans United
Close Argument Open Argument Go to this Argument

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • tj10
    But what if there is intelligence behind the emergence of life?

    Just what if there is a Creator? Isn't science after truth? Has science proven that there is no Creator? Why is recognizing the possibility that there was intelligence behind the emergence of life a non-scientific idea?

    Basically what you are saying is that if there was a Creator or intelligence behind the emergence of life, science will never be able to come up with the right answer, right?

    So your whole premise for ID being non-scientific is the unproven worldview of naturalism?

    You start off right from the get go with the assumption that there is no Creator or any intelligence involved in the emergence of life and go and try and prove your idea with science.

    If you want to limit science to working within the little box of naturalism, fine, but then, you have to admit that you might be wrong from the start.

    I think that is what ID is trying to show us. They simply want to show that there is good scientific evidence for considering the role of intelligence in the emergence of life. Does that fit with naturalism? No, but since when must scientists bow the knee to naturalism to do good science?

    Many great scientists of the past did not bow the knee to Naturalism and yet we revere them today for their amazing achievements. Looking for design in nature is a great way to do science. Naturalists have no way to explain the amazing desing we see in Nature. Their philosophy would not predict order and design, yet that is exactly what we find. If you have the faith to believe in millions of naturalistic miracles of chance, great. I admire your faith. But not everyone has as much faith in the random powers of evolution.

    Since you cannot even prove your worldview, don't you think it would be wise to look at both sides of the issue if you are sincerely after the truth?....

    I do.

    - tj10JP September 12, 2008 9:07PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • onein6billion
      Massive fail

      "They simply want to show that there is good scientific evidence for considering the role of intelligence in the emergence of life."

      Unfortunately for them, they have failed. They have no such "scientific evidence".

      "don't you think it would be wise to look at both sides of the issue"

      Of course. And the so-called "intelligent design" side has failed.

      - onein6billionUS November 4, 2008 10:00AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • F2XL
        On your part, yes

        "Unfortunately for them, they have failed. They have no such "scientific evidence"."

        "Of course. And the so-called " intelligent design " side has failed."


        Wow, just when I thought PvM had a serious lack of substance! Can you give at least some kind of reasoning behind the idea that they not only have no evidence but have failed?

        - F2XLUS November 6, 2008 7:52PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • onein6billion
          Why?

          Why should I waste more than 30 seconds attempting to communicate with an ignoramus?

          There is a wonderful world wide web out there with a lot of substance. But that would be asking too much, I'm sure.

          - onein6billionUS November 7, 2008 5:57AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Joe G
    Intelligent Design is NOT Religious

    By the "logic" of the anti-IDists, the current theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Richard Dawkins once stated it allows for one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

    Just because some or even most IDists are religious does NOT mean that ID is religious.

    The ONLY way to label Intelligent Design "religious" is to change the definition of religion.

    And BTW, Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

    Why do the anti-IDists insist on lame science?

    As for scientific evidence for ID start with the genetic code. The day we observe nature, operating freely, putting together a code is the day that MicroSoft will lay off all their programmers because they are unecessary.

    And the bottom line is if the anti-ID side actually had some scientific evidence for their position ID would go away.

    - Joe GUS September 15, 2008 5:38AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • PvM
      Religions

      --Joe G
      The ONLY way to label Intelligent Design "religious" is to change the definition of religion.
      --

      Tell that to Philip Johnson

      --Johnson

      “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”
      --

      Straight from the mouth of an ID proponent.

      QED

      --
      And the bottom line is if the anti-ID side actually had some scientific evidence for their position ID would go away.
      ---

      Unlikely, ID just would do what it has been doing, move its goalposts and still be vacuous

      - PvMUS September 15, 2008 9:17AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Joe G
        Buy a vowel

        As you have been told already what Phil says is irrelevant to ID. Or you have to allow what Dawkins says about the theory of evolution.

        What part of that don't you understand?

        And it is a fact that if you could support your position with real data ID would go away.

        You can whine all you want but that will not change that fact.

        - Joe GUS September 17, 2008 5:59AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • PvM
          Well that solves it

          I guess this means that what ID proponents say about ID, is irrelevant even though said proponents are the ones who started ID?
          Fascinating indeed. But contrary to your claims, what Phil says and said was incredibly relevant in establishing the creationist roots and foundations of ID, which combined with its lack of scientific content, dooms it to irrelevancy

          ID will never go away, we have already seen how it just moves its goalposts, all the way to front loaded design.

          What has ID done again for our understanding of the bacterial flagella Joe? Why is it so hard to address this simple question Joe?

          - PvMUS September 17, 2008 9:16AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • PvM
      Genetic code

      --
      As for scientific evidence for ID start with the genetic code. The day we observe nature, operating freely, putting together a code is the day that MicroSoft will lay off all their programmers because they are unecessary.
      --
      Please tell us how does ID explain the genetic code, and I am sure you can explain to us the various hypotheses and the evidence as to how science explains it.

      But you have made a clear case that ID is all about ignorance, your 'bottom line' betrays' you.

      So surprise me, explain to us how ID explains the genetic code. And lacking that, show that you understand today's best explanations and admit that ID is not an inference to best explanation.

      Looking forward to your reply.

      As to your evolution is atheistic by the same logic, you are missing two important points. One, ID is not scientifically fruitful, two, ID was 'created' to get God inside the class rooms. With such a history, it is not hard to understand why people correctly have come to realize ID is at best a poor theology.

      - PvMUS September 15, 2008 9:25AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Joe G
        Genectic Code

        As for scientific evidence for ID start with the genetic code. The day we observe nature, operating freely, putting together a code is the day that MicroSoft will lay off all their programmers because they are unecessary.
        --
        PvM
        Please tell us how does ID explain the genetic code, and I am sure you can explain to us the various hypotheses and the evidence as to how science explains it.
        ---

        ID explains the genetic code the same way we explain a computer code.

        Again instead of asking questions all you have to do is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can put together such a code.

        However it is obvious you will never even attempt such a thing.

        PvM:
        But you have made a clear case that ID is all about ignorance, your 'bottom line' betrays' you.
        --

        Now you are just lying. I have stated that ID relies on our experience, which means it does NOT rely on our ignorance.

        YOUR position, however, counts on ignorance.

        Also ID was NOT created to get "God" into anything. But thatnk you for onbce again demonstrating your dishonesty.

        It is clear that ID is an areligious approach to origins.

        - Joe GUS September 17, 2008 6:03AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • PvM
          False analogies

          --ID explains the genetic code the same way we explain a computer code.--

          Poof?...

          And thus, lacking a real response, Joe moves the goalposts back to science to show how it explains the genetic code. Let's thus explore why ID once again remains scientifically vacuous. All it can do is 'it looks designed', 'science cannot explain it'

          But science has indeed explanations for how the genetic code arose, and although there are still many gaps, science has uncovered many new features to support its hypotheses. Let me know when you have located the compiler. ID once again has been shown to remain unable to propose any competing hypothesis which explains the data better than science.

          As to ID not being invented to get God into anything, I guess you are calling your own ID proponents to be dishonest? Wow...

          Sure, appeal to the supernatural is areligious.
          ROTFL, next time you defend ID in court... Behe and Fuller already were to honest to admit that it is really all about the supernatural.

          - PvMUS September 17, 2008 9:21AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • PvM
          experience

          --Joe G
          Now you are just lying. I have stated that ID relies on our experience, which means it does NOT rely on our ignorance.
          --

          What experience do we have with bacterial flagella and the genetic code? Other than that there is a superficial similarity with outboard engines and 'computer code'. Claims of positive experience when inferring design may be valid with ordinary design, which is how real science infers design and agency, but said method is woefully flawed when it comes to 'rarefied' design for which we have no experience.

          Now, there is nothing wrong with using the concept of design with formulating hypotheses. After all, the heart was historically seen as a pump, leading science to proceed in a fruitful area. But here we should not conflate the usefulness with a scientific necessity or relevance.

          - PvMUS September 17, 2008 10:31AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • PvM
      Einstein and religion

      --Einstein
      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ~ Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side--

      Seems Einstein considers the structure of the world as revealed by science the 'religion'. It always helps to comprehend the context in which these quote mines were produced.

      After all in the same paper Joe quotes, Einstein also remarked

      --
      The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....
      --

      - PvMUS September 15, 2008 11:51AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Joe G
        Your point?

        I never said anything about Einstein's religious convictions. Not one word.

        ID is not about a personal God. ID does not require a God at all. ID does not require intervention.

        The quote stands:

        "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

        "But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.”- Albert Einstein

        And seeing that PvM doesn't care about the truth why is he a scientist?

        - Joe GUS September 17, 2008 6:09AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • PvM
          Nice ad hominem

          --And seeing that PvM doesn't care about the truth why is he a scientist?--

          On the contrary, I have been asking you several times now: How does ID explains the bacterial flagella.

          Joe is right in one aspect, given the path chosen by ID, it may very well point to natural designers after all. But why call it 'design' then? As the supernatural is really the only focus of its 'approach' of eliminating natural processes of regularity of chance. What remains is either the empty set, or our ignorance or the supernatural.

          To understand how Einstein used the word religion you need to understand his position, otherwise it is just quote mining.

          - PvMUS September 17, 2008 9:24AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • PvM
          Einstein and religion

          --Joe G
          I never said anything about Einstein's religious convictions. Not one word.
          --

          and yet Joe G also said

          --
          "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
          --

          In order to understand this comment by Einstein, you have to understand Einstein's religious convictions lest one is merely interested in 'quote mining' but then why quote Einstein. Einstein's position is actually perpendicular to ID where Einstein says that the regularity of nature is the religious aspect of science. In other words, it renders ID meaningless as it proposes regularity not the absence thereof, which would trigger the 'design inference'.

          Contrary thus to Joe's words, he should have either considered Einstein's religious convictions when he quoted him or he should not have quote Einstein. To quote Einstein as if it add relevance and credibility to Joes argument is just 'mining'

          - PvMUS September 17, 2008 11:28AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Hope7
    They are not suppose to support hate of religion either

    but they do. Well for a while longer anyway. I think the public schools are going to take the same route as the car dealers and home banking crisis ie bankrupcy. Parents have had enough and I predict a serious decline in public school attendance this next year and a half. Just my home schooling mother thoughts.

    - Hope7US July 21, 2009 8:53AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Hope7
    Ps I voted Yes on ID

    I have been a Christian most of my life and the ten years I lived outside the community was hell on earth. I liked Ben Steins DVD, EXPELLED, and he said it all for me!
    I also like the web site WWW.GODINSCIENCE.ORG
    Gd bless you

    - Hope7US July 21, 2009 8:55AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • countryboy
    Public schools

    Poblic schools are not to promote religion .Is that a fact? OK where do you get right from wrong?Why do we have laws and where did these laws come from?Most of the laws came from the Bible.Look at the ten commandments 5 of them are laws of the land.do we teach kids in public schools to be lawless?

    - countryboyUS July 21, 2009 6:31PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • quantummechanik
      What about the other 5?

      Why don't we add those in?

      And believe me, those commandments weren't invented at that time. There wasn't a free-for-all on murder or theft before Moses came down from the mountain. The Code of Hammurabi had those prohibitions.

      - quantummechanikUS July 21, 2009 6:56PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • countryboy
        the other 5

        Why dont you tell me?Are they needed to for health and safety of the country?

        - countryboyUS July 21, 2009 8:34PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • MrBook
      the only source?

      the 10 commandments are not the sole source of morality. The laws of the Chinese, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Vedic, Japanese, Incans, and numerous others were developed long before their people ever heard of the 10. Not teaching the 5 commandments will not make people lawless any more then not teaching them the rules of Buddha.

      - MrBookUS July 21, 2009 7:59PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • countryboy
        Religion in schools

        What I am saying is if we teach laws.5 laws of the land are from the Bible.So you are teaching religion .

        - countryboyUS July 21, 2009 8:27PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • MrBook
          yes

          or more specifically... Yes, if we teach those 5 laws as originating from a divine source. If we teach that they are part of a historical environment along side Hammurabbi's code and the writings of Greek ethicist then it is not teaching religion .

          - MrBookUS July 21, 2009 9:19PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Objection
Motives Don't Matter & Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander
- From Discovery Institute
Yes Side
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Close Objection Open Objection Go to this Objection

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • PvM
    Some clarifications.

    --Casey--

    As evidence that teaching ID promotes religion, AUSCS claims that “Phillip Johnson, the so-called ‘father of Intelligent Design,’ once told a religious audience that his goal is to use ID to instill doubt about evolution in people's minds and then introduce them to ‘the truth’ of Jesus Christ.”

    AUSCS, an organization that often gets involved with litigation, should know that this argument would never pass muster in a court of law: This is a mere anecdotal assertion that someone “once told a religious audience” about alleged religious motivations, and no quotes or documentation are provided by AUSCS to verify the quote.
    --

    This is hilarious since Barbara Forrest and Paul R Gross have carefully examined and documented the various claims by Phillip Johnson and the Wedge document. The AUSCS's quote seems well in line with the established facts, facts which were extensively quoted in the Kitzmiller ruling

    A good article on Johnson can be found here http://www.talkreason.org/articles/honesty.cfm other good resources are Denis Lamoureux's thorough rebuttal of Johnson.


    As to the source of the quote, I may have traced it back to

    --
    Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."
    --
    http://web.archive.org/web/20010508032051/http :// www.au.org/churchstate/cs4995.htm


    As to the statement that

    --
    But as I argued in my first and fifth opening statements, ID is not a religious argument, and therefore teaching ID does not unconstitutionally advance religion.
    --

    Yes, this was also argued in court and rejected by the court for good reasons. ID by itself may not be a religious argument, after all that was the point of calling it ID, to remove references to religion. However, the combined lack of any scientific relevance and the well established religious foundations of ID, have caused ID to be intricately linked to religion, by design.

    - PvMUS September 10, 2008 9:29PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • sharky
    You do know you don't have to object everything, right?

    Good arguments are worth far more than vehement objections.

    In the Dover case, it was extensively proved that ID did little more than extensively use cherry-picked fact and misinformation to cause confusion about science, then extend the miracle of Intelligent Design as the "answer." Preventing this approach has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with facts.

    I was taught Creationism (my education was at a private school, and the cloak of ID did not have to be used) extensively, and taught the same "controversies" appearing in Intelligent Design arguments and manuals. The result? A wasted private-school education and my having to pay in college for not having a good science education before I took a real biology class.

    Please review the definition of "censorship." The prevention of deceit is not censorship.

    - sharkyUS September 24, 2008 9:37PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: No

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • rkiser
    I love Science

    Liberals will loose this battle. Our nation no longer has to listen to the lies of the media. The youth of the nation are reasearching now thinks to alternative Media. I Love True Science. Thank you BEHE

    - rkiserUS September 25, 2008 3:50PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • PvM
      Liberals?

      Is good science a 'liberal' theme?

      If you love true science, you must be a liberal

      You are in good company but remember that good science, including evolutionary science knows no boundaries, Christians, republicans, democrats and independents all accept the facts of science, of course given the historical link between evangelicals and republicans we do observe a stronger lack of understanding of science amongst some who also happen to be republicans but do not confuse cause and effect here.

      - PvMUS September 26, 2008 9:54AM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Intelligent Design?

  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

 
 

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.