Homework Help

How does intelligent design differ from theories of creationism and evolution?How does...

user profile pic

xtreme69 | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 2) Honors

Posted September 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM via web

dislike 0 like
How does intelligent design differ from theories of creationism and evolution?

How does intelligent design differ from theories of creationism and evolution?

13 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 2) Honors

Posted September 28, 2009 at 2:02 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

Intelligent Design is a sub-argument of Creationism. In essence it doesn't differ from it, it is part of it. It is a 'teleological' argument, in other words, it is an attempt to prove the existence of God by citing the irreducible complexity of the universe. This claim has a very long history and can be traced back to at least Roman times. 

ID has been disproved by philosophical argument for centuries, but it still has value to creationists in prosletysing to non-scientific people. Extremely complex things can arise without a designer. (apart from anything else, if you have to have a designer to make complex things; who made God?)

ID differs from the theory of evolution because it has failed to submit any work for peer review in any scientific journals and so may not be considered a scientific theory.

An interesting point about the ID movement is that its supporters insist it should be taught as part of the scientific curriculum, but they never actually allow science to review their work. The US federal court has ruled that...

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard."

Intelligent Design is nothing more than deliberately misleading falsehoods aimed at non-scientific people. It is not science and cannot withstand basic scientific scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trial

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted September 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

The claim that life on earth is 'intelligently designed' is simply wrong. The human body has many many things that are imperfect. Because it evolved from earlier forms, the human body has many compromises and restrictions which an intelligent designer would not have chosen.

The Human Body is far from perfect... try this link for more info 

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted September 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

The first answer posted above explains clearly the basic premise of intelligent design. There is not much that I would like to add to it. However, I do not reject entirely the intelligent design theory.

Firs, I would like to set the record straight in respect of some sweeping statements.

ID has been disproved by philosophical argument for centuries - dancer7

Nothing of this sort has happened. The theory of intelligent design has neither been proved or disproved. Also, there is a misconception that theory of evolution has been proved. In reality theory of evolution just presents very powerful logic backed by evidence that is difficult to refute. But the theory has never been proved, and therefore does not qualify to be called "law of evolution"

The human body has many many things that are imperfect. Because it evolved from earlier forms, the human body has many compromises and restrictions which an intelligent designer would not have chosen. - fizzyperm

Yes, human body is quite imperfect, perfect much perfect than a simple watch. Still human body is is a much better and more difficult to design than a watch. Then there are imperfections in scientifically proven and universally accepted physical laws also.

Everything, in the universe contracts when cooled and expands when heated. But for some reason, not yet found out by science, water between 0 and 4 degrees centigrade expands when cooled and contracts when heated. But I do not see it as imperfection. I see it as the perfect design of this whole universe. We will not have existed on this world without this small little imperfection. I do not know how many such imperfections are there in this world that make this whole universe what it is.

There are two arguments of intelligent which I find rater difficult to refute. First, is about the statistical probability of this world being evolved to this present state just by the random process of genetic mutation. I do not know of any study that works out the physical probability of a human being developing in the 3.5 billion years through the process of evolution alone. If some one has the data I would be happy to take a look at it. But in absence of such data I tend to believe that theory of evolution cannot be supported on the basis of statistical analysis.

The second argument a against the evolution is that the nature of living things that exist as well as those that have existed in the past. The world has more than 2 million species of living things - a very large numbers. But this large number is matched by a very large number of variety also. This means that any one variety of living thing is distinctly different from other variety. This observation is valid also for the variety that have become extinct and known to us only through fossils. However if evolution was the only process responsible for all the variety of living beings, there should have been a continuum of different varieties of living things, rather than just some distinctly different varieties.

Though evolution has played a major role in development of  living things, it is not the only precess responsible for it. There must be other influences, not identified by science. I do not say that those "yet to be discovered forces" are same as the concept of "theory of intelligent design". I will not be surprised if it was, at least not more than the extent to which water expanding when cooling form 4 to 0 degrees centigrade and its impact on the design of universe does.

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted September 29, 2009 at 12:59 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

@KA

Your first argument (that life evolving randomly is just too improbable) is a common objection, but this argument is generally based on a misunderstanding of evolution which Dawkins calls a  'combination lock'  false model. This misconception is explained in this 10-minute link. Please watch it carefully, because you have a major false assumption about how evolution works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sUQIpFajsg

Your second argument (that the fossil record should show incremental variation) well, put simply, it does. The are thousands of 'half-way' fossils that blur the varieties and show that they are not distinct.

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

And as for the centuries old, philosophical disproof of ID. It has been disproved; It has been disproved that nature does not need a designer to form complexity AND how do you nullify the objection that if complexity automatically proves a creator, you must explain how the complex entity 'God' was created without his own creator. The ID argument is full of irrepairable philosophical and scientific holes. 

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

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted September 29, 2009 at 4:47 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

In response to post above, I would first like to clarify that I do not reject the theory of evolution. I am only saying that theory of evolution explains the process of development of this world only partially. Further I do not rule out the possibility of some process like intelligent design forming other part of the process.

Without going through all the references given in the above post, I am ready to concede that they would have presented a good case in support of evolution. I would only take up the following point:

... how do you nullify the objection that if complexity automatically proves a creator, you must explain how the complex entity 'God' was created without his own creator. - frizzyperm

Right, nothing is proved automatically. But logically many things may be proved. Yes, there can be flaw in logic, and therefore the conclusion from such logic may be wrong. My logic is that creation (effect) proves a creator (cause). If some one says this logic to be flawed, and  presents an alternate logic that there can be a creation without a creator, I am ready to consider any arguments presented in support of such logic. I find no such arguments ever presented by science. As a matter of fact science insists that there can be no effect without a cause.

The mistake we make is of considering "creator" as some kind of super human being. It will be easy to accept the concept of intelligent design as a cause or process, just as evolution is a process.

There is a concept in Indian philosophy which holds that this whole universe evolved from nothing, a zero or a shoonya. This concept is very much like the big bang theory which holds that this whole universe was created in a split second out of nothing. If science has no problem accepting that this vast and varied universe was created from nothing, why so much resistance to accepting the possibility that there exist forces beyond comprehension of science that influence other things in the universe?

user profile pic

frizzyperm | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted September 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

Logically many things may be proved. Yes, there can be flaw in logic, and therefore the conclusion from such logic may be wrong. My logic is that creation (effect) proves a creator (cause). If some one says this logic to be flawed, and  presents an alternate logic that there can be a creation without a creator, I am ready to consider any arguments presented in support of such logic. I find no such arguments ever presented by science. As a matter of fact science insists that there can be no effect without a cause. -KA                                                      

And, Krishna, claiming it is logical that there can be no effect without cause leaves you with the inescapable logical paradox; You MUST somehow explain how this effective God was caused. If you wish to insist that the Earth proves God as a creator because it is complex, then, logically, the complex creator must also have had a creator. Which leads you spinning off into a series of infinite regressions with every creator having another creator standing behind him, and which, thus, makes your logic false and absurd.

As I said at the start of this thread, the theory of Intelligent Design was thoroughly and comprehensively disproved in the 19th century. If you wish to resurrect it as a viable intellectual and logical argument, you have to explain how God was created without a creator, otherwise you cannot insist the creation of the universe is logical proof of God.

user profile pic

pchenkin | Middle School Teacher | eNotes Newbie

Posted October 7, 2009 at 5:07 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like
How does intelligent design differ from theories of creationism and evolution?

How does intelligent design differ from theories of creationism and evolution?

Intelligent design and creationism are faith based explanations of the origin of the species, while evolution is the scientifically prooven theory.

user profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted October 7, 2009 at 5:42 AM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

And, Krishna, claiming it is logical that there can be no effect without cause leaves you with the inescapable logical paradox; You MUST somehow explain how this effective God was caused. - Frizzyperm

Yes, this paradox exists, like many other paradoxes. My inability to prove some thing does not change the reality. As a matter of fact the the inability of complete might of science to know, prove, or disprove some thing also does not change the reality. The way big bang created the universe has become known to science only recently. Yet the reality of big bang has always existed. Even now science does not know the cause of big bang, or how this whole universe was created out of nothing. This dose not mean that big bang did not take place.

Big bang is a big paradox, but the best of the scientist have no problem in learning to compromise with this or many other paradoxes. Another common paradox of science is the existence of all electromagnetic waves, which also include light waves. Science says that a wave cannot exist in vacuum. Waves can exist in vacuum only. But the science also accepts that all electromagnetic waves exist in vacuum. I find that best and greatest of the scientists such as Newton, Einstein, and Stephen Hawking have no problem with accepting the existence of some entity like God with super intelligence. It appears to me that lower the understanding of science of a so called modern, logical, and rational person, stronger is his or her denial of existence of God.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 2) Honors

Posted October 7, 2009 at 8:55 AM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

I find that best and greatest of the scientists such as Newton, Einstein, and Stephen Hawking have no problem with accepting the existence of some entity like God with super intelligence -KA

I completely 100% agree with you.

Except that Hawking is an agnostic leaning towards atheist.

oh... And Einstein was too.

And Newton lived in the 17th century, an age notable for its religious intolerance, when publishing doubts about God could easily get you burned to death by the God-fearing. He refused the sacrements on his deathbed.

And there's no reason why EMR shouldn't be able to travel in a vacuum.

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

user profile pic

mr-angel | College Teacher | (Level 2) Adjunct Educator

Posted October 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM (Answer #11)

dislike 0 like

Why is it that creationists and evolutionists must be set up as adversaries?  The science of evolution seeks to explain how living things change over a period of time.  Evolution supporters bring forth evidence of a world of living creatures that have changed over time and seek explanations for these changes.  Evolution does not explain the "who" behind the creation of the universe; it does not attempt to explain the origins of the universe at all!

Can evolution be the explaination of "how" creation happened?  Can a person of Christian faith accept a view of creationism and evolution as its vehicle? 

user profile pic

jseligmann | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted October 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM (Answer #12)

dislike 0 like

As to the question above:

"Can a person of Christian faith accept a view of creationism and evolution as its vehicle?"

I personally don't see how. Evolution is blind and, from a human and moral point of view, downright cruel.

user profile pic

dancer7 | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 2) Honors

Posted October 7, 2009 at 11:49 PM (Answer #13)

dislike 0 like

 Evolution is blind and, from a human and moral point of view, downright cruel. jseligman

Cruelty is an emotion. Evolution has no personality. You have anthropomorphised it. Evolution is simply a large number of mathematical probabilities. And it doesn't matter at all if people of faith 'accept' it. It doesn't change the fact that it is demonstrably true.

If somebody needs to base their moral code, wholesale, on somebody else's opinions written 2000+ years ago, well I think that's not immoral, but it is irresponsible (like the 21st century parents who let their daughter die a slow and painful death because their 'book' said that talking to the sky was a better treatment for diabetes than modern medicinel)

And if, in order to support their ancient code, they have to wilfully ignore, distort and discredit the turth, then that is immoral.

Evolution is true. We are all great apes. We must create our own morality and can certainly do better than many of the value systems cited in the bible.

user profile pic

jseligmann | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted October 8, 2009 at 9:32 AM (Answer #14)

dislike 0 like

 Evolution is blind and, from a human and moral point of view, downright cruel. jseligman

Cruelty is an emotion. Evolution has no personality. You have anthropomorphised it. Evolution is simply a large number of mathematical probabilities. And it doesn't matter at all if people of faith 'accept' it. It doesn't change the fact that it is demonstrably true.

If somebody needs to base their moral code, wholesale, on somebody else's opinions written 2000+ years ago, well I think that's not immoral, but it is irresponsible (like the 21st century parents who let their daughter die a slow and painful death because their 'book' said that talking to the sky was a better treatment for diabetes than modern medicinel)

And if, in order to support their ancient code, they have to wilfully ignore, distort and discredit the turth, then that is immoral.

Evolution is true. We are all great apes. We must create our own morality and can certainly do better than many of the value systems cited in the bible.

That's why I said, "from a human and moral point of view." Looked at dispassionately, evolution is what it is.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes