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 8 Comments on this Argument. See all 1083 Comments on this Question.
Regarding Argument
Teaching ID in the Public Schools Infringes Constitutional Rights
- From National Center for Science Education
No Side
By National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution
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.

  • zebrakin
    how can you get away with being so rude

    Stop eating at creationist's heads and settle down a tad. Look at the facts. Pick a flower and study it. Believe me, this will keep you busy for quite some time. Did this happen in a loud noise? A pot of slime?
    It seems it would be nicer to think of oneself as a wondrous creature created by God as the pinnacle of creation, as opposed to something that used to be an ape and somehow and eventually became a human.
    It leaves so much to be explained..
    ALSO why are you so rabidly angry at the idea of ID being in public school textbooks? Evolution is in eeevery single one. If freedom of speech and truth is such an issue why dont we put BOTH views in science books and have teachers encourage students to talk to their parents about it. So we can still be a diverse country of beliefs, not of stupid sheep.

    - zebrakinUS November 23, 2008 3:16PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.

    • Matthew Ackerman
      A kind rejoinder.

      It is not entirely clear to me who you are inditing for being rude, so I wont attempt to defend them.

      I would like to respond two points you raise:

      1) That it is preferable to have a super-natural design process to a natural design process.

      I'm afraid I can't understand where you are coming from. I really don't see what difference it makes as to what process is responsible for designing us, what the goals, preferences, or attributes of our designer are etc.

      Can something be wonderful because it is made by this person in this location at that time? Or is it wonderful because of some property the object possess in the present time? In other words, aren't people wonderful simply because they are people? I have never met a person and asked myself: Was this one created by God? Because if this person wasn't then they just aren't wonderful anymore. I only want intrinsic wondrousness, not some worthless extrinsic wondrousness.

      And on your second point: Yes, evolution is in every single biology text book, just like relativity is at the end of every single physics text book.

      I'd like to know what you would think if a teacher presented three views for our creation: Evolution, intelligent design, and malevolent design. Can I tell students that life was created to inflict suffering on other life? In all honesty, should I be ALLOWED to tell students that human beings are the creation of a malevolent entity? By simply presenting arguments to support this conclusion I would be forced to advocate some form of satanism.

      Less illustratively, teachers do not have freedom of speech when teaching children. I cannot go into school tomorrow and tell all the children in the class and express political opinions. I cannot go and express theological opinions. (Children: pray to Satan. I'm sure I won't get fired for telling you to do this...) Teachers simply do not have the same freedom to express their opinions in the class room as you have in a public forum.

      I know you believe that ID is excluded from scientific texts because of its religious connotations. You probably wont believe me but nothing could be further from the truth. ID is excluded from scientific text books simply because of its lack of scientific standing. If ID researcher had productive scientific careers resolving longstanding questions of theory, then I can assure you ID would quickly be adopted by grant hungry professors everywhere.

      To provide the most succinct summary I can: ID cannot be taught in a science classroom because no arguments in favor of it are scientific.

      Do not confuse philosophy and mathematics with science.

      - Matthew Ackerman December 2, 2008 1:46AM

      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
        A Kind Response

        I can't say I agree with too much of what zebrakin said, so I won't defend him.

        I however, would like to reply to a couple claims you made about ID:

        1. "Less illustratively, teachers do not have freedom of speech when teaching children. I cannot go into school tomorrow and tell all the children in the class and express political opinions. I cannot go and express theological opinions. (Children: pray to Satan. I'm sure I won't get fired for telling you to do this...) Teachers simply do not have the same freedom to express their opinions in the class room as you have in a public forum."

        Then why are they told the only "good" religion out there is religion in which evolution is accepted? Does this not violate the very rule you elaborated on?

        http://www.discovery.org/a/2978

        Not to mention the fact that bringing satanism to the table and saying that a teacher would say SPECIFICALLY to pray to satan under a fairness curriculum is a complete straw man.

        "I know you believe that ID is excluded from scientific texts because of its religious connotations. You probably wont believe me but nothing could be further from the truth."

        So it has nothing to do with BS claims about the contents of early drafts for ID books or alleged right-wing theocratic conspiracies???

        "ID is excluded from scientific text books simply because of its lack of scientific standing."

        What does it lack that would give it standing?

        "If ID researcher had productive scientific careers resolving longstanding questions of theory, then I can assure you ID would quickly be adopted by grant hungry professors everywhere."

        So since that's been taken care of in the form of dozens of books, websites, etc. what happens now?

        "To provide the most succinct summary I can: ID cannot be taught in a science classroom because no arguments in favor of it are scientific."

        Why not?

        - F2XLUS December 2, 2008 5:54PM

        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.

  • ufcarazy
    The reasons for the 2nd Amendment do not apply to ID

    The reason for the existence of the second amendment is to prevent religious people from being denied the opportunity to practice their religion. It is also designed to prevent people from being forced to practice a religion. These are worthy reasons for the second amendment. However, not a single person will be prevented from practicing or will be forced to practice a religion if ID is taught in schools. Therefore, the reasons for the second amendment are not applicable to the teaching of ID.

    There is no scientific evidence that atheist students suffer mental health complications as a result of being exposed to Intelligent Design, nor evidence that their or their parent's ability to vote how they wish will be affected. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that harm is caused to anyone after repeated exposure to Intelligent Design. The hypothesis that people's rights will be violated and/or harm will be caused is not supported in any peer-reviewed journals (and we all know that if it ain't in peer-reviewed journals, then it should not be believed).

    - ufcarazyUS February 12, 2009 1:23PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) 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.

Regarding Objection
Rewriting History & Twisting the Law Doesn’t Turn ID Into Creationism
- 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
    Ironic

    that Luskin accuses the NCSE of rewriting history and law when both clearly established the evolution of creationists via cdesign proponentsists to "design proponents". The link between the ignorance of its predecessors is continued in ID via the work of such 'luminaries' as Jonathan Wells who repeats much of the same flawed arguments against evolutionary theory.

    Judge Jones was not fooled by the attempts to explain, after the fact, the obvious transition which coincided (design inference) with the Edwards ruling which ruled creationism to be unconstitutional. In an obvious attempt to shed any reference to God, delegating Him to an irrelevant role, ID has attempted to circumvent the rulings of law. And it has not worked, because ID is based on the same flawed arguments that doomed creationism (sudden appearance is still an essential component) and the argument is that ID cannot distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. However, real science can deal quite well with the natural but when it comes to the supernatural, design inferences have historically been unreliable.

    Look at the recent findings related to the bacterial flagellum which have totally undermined Behe's argument for design. Has Behe admitted that his inference for design was flawed? Has he admitted the impact of such falsification on ID? Of course not. It's best not to inform ID supporters of these inconvenient facts of science.

    If ID were all in favor of teaching the controversy, it seems reluctant to explain the controversy.

    As to twisting the law, Luskin's attempts to dismiss Judge Jones's ruling are self evident even though Luskin, who is a lawyer himself, should know better. Hearing Casey use the term revisionism in his own posting is just the pinnacle of irony.

    Never mind though, Luskin has managed to give away the playbook for the next season and I am sure the NCSE is looking forward to the next encounter. So far, they have quite a winning streak in supporting science.

    - PvMUS September 23, 2008 9:30AM

    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.

  • sharky
    Perhaps the Discovery Institute could calm for a moment?

    What's a "Darwinist?" Can someone who says that the other side is mishandling terms really afford to label someone as "Darwinist?" I neither worship Darwin nor accept his writings as absolute truth. ID, on the other hand, may be compatible with a wide range of faiths, but they don't seem terribly interested. The only proponents of ID I've ever spoken with are Christian.

    If there was the presence of an Intelligent Designer, who else would it matter to? Pantheists don't care; they already think the world's workings are in harmony according to overlapping plans. Agnostics are noncommittal about the designer, not the least because there's no proof of intelligent design. So all of those meet science without presuppositions and with respect for what is real.

    The Abrahamic religions center most strongly around a judgemental god. If there were not the idea of judgement, would the possibility of an intelligence with the power to create life even matter? It's only the idea that this is the god that humanity answers to that makes Christians push for the reality of ID's design and the idea that it should be proselytized.

    - sharkyUS September 24, 2008 7:46AM

    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.

  • onein6billion
    You can run, but you can't hide

    Luskin quotes:

    "May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?"

    This would seem to be the usual trick of "origins science" - an attempt to claim that abiogenesis is impossible.

    But another opinion is:

    "The book argues that the origin of new organisms is "in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.""

    This refers to "new organisms" - that would mean new species, not abiogenesis.

    And:

    "creation means that various forms of life began abruptly"

    This is definitely anti-evolution creationism without specifying a creator explicitly.

    Then:

    In a new draft of Pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design. The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency".

    So, the definition remained the same, only the nouns were changed. I wonder why the judge ruled that this really was the same old creation story?

    "the basic arguments for design pre-date Christianity"

    Fine. The philosophers didn't have a clue about evolution back then and you still don't have a clue today.

    - onein6billionUS September 30, 2008 8:40PM

    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.

Intelligent Design?

  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

 
 
  • Michael Behe
    Dr. Michael Behe
    Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and the author of two books exploring the intelligent design of life: Darwin's Black Box... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.