Intelligent Design

Thought i'd see what people think of Intelligent Design.

For those of you who don't know what it is, it's essentially a few creationist idiots who try to disprove Evolution scientifically. They use irriducable complexity as evidence of evolution not occuring (however this is a very rare occurance in nature and it is explained by modern evolution, if not Darwinian evolution).

It's essentially the most rediculous idea to be concieved since the first person who decided the Bible was supposed to be taken literally.

But some people insist on believing it (most of those people who believe this go through the process of non-thinking called faith). So I wanted opinions.

Well im not the smartest person in the world. But stephen hawking is or at least was and hes a creationist. So id like to think he figgured somthing out. Einstien was also creationist. For me I believe in creationism because of the fact that we have all these "natural laws and rules" that govern how thing work and react. How could such laws and rules that fit together so perfectly to make the universe we know not have a higher intelligence to them?
I guess you could say that I don't believe that something of intelligence can come from random chance. Also I don't believe that something can materialize out of non-existance. There has to be an intelligent source of creation somewhere.

another random belief, whatever.
the only thing that pisses me off is when they talked about teaching it in schools.
people can believe anything they want and teach it to their kids as they will.
it's a way in believing in science without removing yourself from your faith in god.
which is understandable.

but education should deal only with facts and scientific theory, anything else is just corruption.

In my opinion theres nothing intelligent about intelligent design. But as long as people who believe in ID aren't forcing their beliefs on people who believe otherwise or have no opinion, I'm fine with it. Think what you will. =P

It was a valid argument but these days it has become pretty clear that the complexity developed from simple steps. Computers working is based off a switch turning on and off for us to have evolved from bacteria is not something amazing. Small details can change to big ones easily given enough steps...

@Arcades: Our universe doesn't really fit together all that well. There are a lot of confusing and seemingly impossible to answer questions. If we continuously divide will there be an end? Does the universe have an end? If it does then what's beyond it? Why is it that 0.9repeating can equal 1? An all powerful, all mighty God wouldn't screw things up like that.

Stephen Hawkings is not a creationist, never has been and almost certainly never will be. Have you ever read any of his books?

Perhaps arcades meant that both Hawkings and Einstein believed in god.

Thats completely different to being Creationist.

Creationism is wrong, simple as that.

Either way thats one of the stupidest arguments supporting creationism ever "two clever people support it, it must be true". Shows you can't think for yourself if you go by that mind-set.

Well talking about hawking and einstien was a very small part of my post Obviously thats not my argument. I just wanted to show how 2 smart influential scientists can believe in intelligent design. The reason why I choose Intelligent design over random chance is because I felt in this case common sense won over science.

Also intelligent design doesn't mean you have to believe in god in a religious way. Hawking and einstien certainly don't. They just believe that the universe Had an intelligent source of creation. I don't believe in a religious god although I keep an open mind about that.

Common sense tells me that all the designs we know about so far have intelligent purposes. When I see the intelligence of a million different objects and forces working together like pieces of a puzzle I have to wonder "can all these pieces really come from nothing?"

As far as stephen hawking goes heres what stephen said to hugh downs in a 1989 interview on 20/20. "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion. But I try to stay this side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by Scientific laws." Anyway my whole point is the design is obviously intelligent to think this all came from nothing and then random chance after that is rediculous.

Also with intelligent design there is room for science to co-exist with it because there is still alot we don't know.
However science hasen't proved it but it hasn't disproved it either. What ever way you look at it intelligent design leaves room for for more options down the line. But with science it's all "will just assume that everything came from nothing untill proven otherwise".

I do not disagree.

I do a lot of reading on the evolution vs creationism topic (I am fairly well read on the topic, though I am by no means an expert).

I have noticed that creationist writers frequently accuse Darwin & and "Darwinists" of being unscientific, and virtually always state that they (creationist) use science correctly...in support of their "theory".

I have not read all of the creationist books (not by a long shot), but so far I have noticed that while creationist say that their theory is based on science they almost never present any of their science...they...their books and "scientific papers" seem very light on scientific evidence/studies.

Also, they are typically wrong in their presentation of Darwin and this theories. Darwin never presumed to know it all, and even dedicated a significant portion of his writings to the weaknesses of his theories.

I have yet to see a creationist spend any time presenting the weaknesses to their theory.

Darwin wasn't trying to go against creationalism he was merely presenting theories of adaptation not of evolution. To base arguments isn't really valid when you consider how advanced the theories on evolution have become today...

ID what can i say... absolutly preposterous.

People can correct me if I'm wrong, but intelligent design basically says that the complexity and perfection of the human body could not have just happened. Just like a watch requires a watchmaker.

To list a few imperfections in the human body.

Appendix
Gall Bladder
An extra kidney
Imperfect vision (for alot of people)
Not enough room for wisdom teeth (for alot of people)

The design flaws of the human body are numerous and drastic.

Also, ID has never been submitted for peer review so at best it is a hypothesis. Certainly not a theory.

ID, in my opinion, is a political correct term for creationism

extra kidney is there because if we only had one it would wear out too quickly...