NationStates Jolt Archive

I am about to write and essay on Intelligent Design


arguments for both sides would be appreciated

Be kind and don't fight to much with each other


but thanks for helping me organize ideas! :) :)

If we are the result of Intelligent Design, why does so much go wrong with our bodies? If we were designed so intelligently, why are there better ways to put our bodies together?
Yes, I am being serious. I have a hard time buying into the comforting idea of intelligent design because of this. Much easier to believe we're the end result of random mutations that worked. Work weirdly sometimes..

As far as I can tell, the argument "for ID" is approximately as such, summed up in four lines:

1) We're frickin complicated.
2) Most of the things that we consider complicated are also things that we have made - if you came across a watch in the desert, you'd figure that it was human-made.
3) We don't see how such complexity as life could arise without intelligent design.
4) Therefore, we had to have been intelligently designed.

Argument against it:
1) It is makes no predictions - saying "some concious force did it" doesn't generate much in the way of tests that can be done. Thus, it can't be disproven - not science, that.
2) It's a "god of the gaps" thing - "we don't know how it happened, so somebody more intelligent than us must have done it."

As well as the issue that the above post points out - we're pretty crappily designed, if we are designed.

Here's my opinion, posted on another thread less than 5 minutes ago.

My main problem with some "science" is the big bang theory. I really don't understand how it explains how the universe began. I know that matter can be created from pure energy. I like to refer to that initial energy as "God".

the main arguments against intelligent design are that

1) nature just looks too macgyvered to be the product of an intelligent designer creating things from scratch. it looks exactly as if the intelligent designer was using spare bits and tinkering with them over many generations through a process of random mutation and natural selection. in other words, exactly like evolution, but with an additional completely untestable bit stuck on.

2)its test for design, irreducible complexity, is an argument from ignorance - just because we cannot currently describe the exact evolutionary pathway that a particular feature followed doesn't mean that there isn't one or that we won't discover it in the future. even worse, half the time it's an argument from personal ignorance on the part of the id proponent, and we already know about a perfectly possible evolutionary pathway to explain the feature.

Intelligent design. . . .if its intelligent, what's wrong with it?

Sorry, thats me being sarcastic. I don't think I know enough about the subject to argue it.

Intelligent Design is a rather weak attempt to supplant evolutionary theory with an creation "explanation" that is dressed up to sound like a scientific theory. The crux of the argument is the idea of "irreducible complexity" of biological structures as an indicator an intelligent designer. Unfortunately for I.D. supporters, there really is no way to measure this. What is the standard that marks something as irreducibly complex? Irreducibly complex to whom? Given that many biological systems that seemed to be black boxes in the past (mechanisms of inheritance, for example) have been explained and clarified eventually through detailed research and creative insight, "irreducible complexity" seems to a standard nearly impossible to pin down. Intelligent design also has a terrible problem with generating testable hypotheses and falsifying those of modern evolutionary theory. This failure is why Intelligent Design adherents can't get their papers published in reputable journals. Basically, it is creationism masquerading as poor science that will eventually be relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history.

Here's my opinion, posted on another thread less than 5 minutes ago.

My main problem with some "science" is the big bang theory. I really don't understand how it explains how the universe began. I know that matter can be created from pure energy. I like to refer to that initial energy as "God".


Any reasonable physicist will admit that the big bang isn't an explanation of how the Universe came into being. It's just a description of what happened starting a ridiculously short time after the beginning. Still, the competing theory (God created the universe) still leaves the essential problem of where it all started (what created God). So, I prefer the big bang theory since its description of the first few days is a heck of a lot more reasonable sounding to me than what's in the bible, and actually fits well with what we know about the universe.

Any reasonable physicist will admit that the big bang isn't an explanation of how the Universe came into being. It's just a description of what happened starting a ridiculously short time after the beginning. Still, the competing theory (God created the universe) still leaves the essential problem of where it all started (what created God). So, I prefer the big bang theory since its description of the first few days is a heck of a lot more reasonable sounding to me than what's in the bible, and actually fits well with what we know about the universe.


Plus, explaining the beginning of the universe in terms of natural phenomena & consequences leads to many more testable propositions than saying "God did it". That doesn't solve the problem of how it all started, but it at least gives you something to work with.

As far as I can tell, the argument "for ID" is approximately as such, summed up in four lines:

1) We're frickin complicated.
2) Most of the things that we consider complicated are also things that we have made - if you came across a watch in the desert, you'd figure that it was human-made.
3) We don't see how such complexity as life could arise without intelligent design.
4) Therefore, we had to have been intelligently designed.

of course, the reason we pick out the watch as being designed is that it is so god-damned different from the rest of the natural world around it. really, the whole thing is based on a terribly stupid analogy.

If we are the result of Intelligent Design, why does so much go wrong with our bodies? If we were designed so intelligently, why are there better ways to put our bodies together?
Yes, I am being serious. I have a hard time buying into the comforting idea of intelligent design because of this. Much easier to believe we're the end result of random mutations that worked. Work weirdly sometimes..
Just because we are imperfect does not mean there was no intelligent design. "Intelligent design" could have easily set evolution in motion and then retired to contemplate the results. Taking this one step further, "intelligent design" could have anticipated that our own imperfection would spur us to develop ways of improving our own genetic makeup. :)

Obligatory link (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm).

Let's aslo take special note our intelligent designer put us on a planet that will be rendered inhabitable by our star in a few billion years, if not sooner.

Just because we are imperfect does not mean there was no intelligent design. "Intelligent design" could have easily set evolution in motion and then retired to contemplate the results. Taking this one step further, "intelligent design" could have anticipated that our own imperfection would spur us to develop ways of improving our own genetic makeup. :)

Ad Hoc hypothesis. Substantiate it.

Basically when you come down to it there are only two basic theories on how the earth was created, one is evolution, and the other is a religious account, whetcher it be the Bible or some other "holy book" Personally I would see the biblical basis of creation as the most logical because it has the least amount of unanswered questions, the main problem with the big bang is that evolution cannot account for any action that caused a "big bang" the biblical view says that God created the earth. Because light was created first before stars we have light from those stars today without having to wait millions and millions of years...next God created the sky in between the waters meaning he created a giant water canopy over the earth, then he created the land and then the plants, then the sun and moon and stars, then the ocean dwelling creatures and the birds, then land animals, and finally humans. Genesis 5 records the flood of noah, which can be explained by the water canopy falling back to earth, it also accounts for additional water to be let out from the ground, which would have likelly shiftet the continents rapidly, which accounts for pangaea the supercontinent, breaking apart to form the present day world.

Anyway, this is just a very rough overview of what I have looked into and personally believe about creation.

Just because we are imperfect does not mean there was no intelligent design. "Intelligent design" could have easily set evolution in motion and then retired to contemplate the results. Taking this one step further, "intelligent design" could have anticipated that our own imperfection would spur us to develop ways of improving our own genetic makeup. :)

At this point you're not talking about the theory of Intelligent design anymore at all, but something a lot closer to Deism - the belief in a God who created the universe, set it running, and doesn't interfere. That's a fairly reasonable theory, as far as religious theories go, but not the same as intelligent design.

A strong argument against Intelligent design is the huge quantity of evidence in favor of evolution. If all life on this planet was designed by an intelligent entity, we have to conclude that he wanted us to believe evolution or he wouldn't have planted so much evidence in favor of it. That seems a little far fetched to me.

If you want to write an interesting paper devote the entire thing to explaining in detail why various hypotheses that support intelligent design are non-falsifiable.

Any reasonable physicist will admit that the big bang isn't an explanation of how the Universe came into being. It's just a description of what happened starting a ridiculously short time after the beginning. Still, the competing theory (God created the universe) still leaves the essential problem of where it all started (what created God). So, I prefer the big bang theory since its description of the first few days is a heck of a lot more reasonable sounding to me than what's in the bible, and actually fits well with what we know about the universe.

Heck of a lot more reasonable sounding, eh?

"Billions of years ago, the entire universe was concentrated into a single, almost infinately small point. Then, it blew up, and expanded from there.

And that's how the universe was created."

Hmm... I don't think either explanation is reasonable.

Most religions justify the fact that their explanation isn't reasonable by saying that God is beyond human understanding.

Which also defends the case for how God was created. Either he created himself, or he's always excisted. We don't understand it because we are not God, so we can't understand it.

Ad Hoc hypothesis. Substantiate it.
The entire damned thread is "ad hoc" you twit! LOL!

At this point you're not talking about the theory of Intelligent design anymore at all, but something a lot closer to Deism - the belief in a God who created the universe, set it running, and doesn't interfere. That's a fairly reasonable theory, as far as religious theories go, but not the same as intelligent design.
So a Deism doesn't include intelligent design? Hmm. Interesting deviation from the way most describe it. :)

At this point you're not talking about the theory of Intelligent design anymore at all, but something a lot closer to Deism - the belief in a God who created the universe, set it running, and doesn't interfere. That's a fairly reasonable theory, as far as religious theories go, but not the same as intelligent design.

A strong argument against Intelligent design is the huge quantity of evidence in favor of evolution. If all life on this planet was designed by an intelligent entity, we have to conclude that he wanted us to believe evolution or he wouldn't have planted so much evidence in favor of it. That seems a little far fetched to me.

Personally I have in my few years of life completly missed all the evidence for evolution, I always thought there was more evidence against it

intelligent design's fundimental problem is that it adds an unnecessary level of complexity without actually doing away with the idea that things had to originally arise without such intelligence. either the universe as we know it arose without intelligent help, or it was created by an intelligence that itself had to arise without such help.

in the end something has to have started from a unintelligent state, something had to just be because it was, god just pushes the issue back one level, it provides no real solution.

the main problem with the big bang is that evolution cannot account for any action that caused a "big bang"

Anyway, this is just a very rough overview of what I have looked into and personally believe about creation.


Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolutionary theory deals with biological change over time, specifically change in allele frequencies within populations over time. The Big Bang theory has to do with the origins of the universe. The two may be part of a larger naturalistic meta-narrative about the cosmos as such, but conceptually they seek to explain different phenomena. Their only real relation is that they're scientific theories that attempt to explain the natural world using the 'laws' of nature using the scientific method.

I suggest you look a little deeper into the data...

Personally I have in my few years of life completly missed all the evidence for evolution, I always thought there was more evidence against it

well if you only read the endless lies of fruitcake theists for scientific falsification, then sure it looks that way from your trailer window. if you knew anything about real science and the massive body of evidence supporting evolution, then no.

The entire damned thread is "ad hoc" you twit! LOL!

Hurr hurr hurr, no.

... but I speak for myself alone.

Heck of a lot more reasonable sounding, eh?
"Billions of years ago, the entire universe was concentrated into a single, almost infinately small point. Then, it blew up, and expanded from there.
And that's how the universe was created."
Hmm... I don't think either explanation is reasonable.


Not much makes sense if you don't understand the concepts. Be sure to aviod confusing our universe with the cosmos at large. Like you said, the matter was already there. Big Bang theory doesn't give two shits how it got there. That's not in the scope of the theory.


Most religions justify the fact that their explanation isn't reasonable by saying that God is beyond human understanding.
Which also defends the case for how God was created. Either he created himself, or he's always excisted. We don't understand it because we are not God, so we can't understand it.

We can't have any knowledge of God but we can tell you all about him! Replacing a mystery with a mystery solves nothing.

We can't have any knowledge of God but we can tell you all about him! Replacing a mystery with a mystery solves nothing.



ooh, that justs begs for an HL Mencken quote:

"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."


His libertarianism proves, as something always does, that no man is perfect 8(

ooh, that justs begs for an HL Mencken quote:

"Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."


His libertarianism proves, as something always does, that no man is perfect 8(
but his antisemetism makes him sexy.

but his antisemetism makes him sexy.


You know it :)

Hexubiss, if you have a bit of time to do some reading on this subject before you begin writing, I would like to suggest some potential sources that might be available at your local library: books authored by Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Phillip Johnson, or William Dembski. These writers are a few of the more famous defenders of ID, and have written quite a number of books on the subject.