is there really ANY evidence for intelligent design?

the other day i heard someone argue something like this: "newly identified mechanism of cell structure suggest more intricacy than natural selection can account for"

is this a valid argument? isn't this just a fancier way of saying that because stuff is complicated, then it must have been created by an invisible man in the sky?

and what's the best possible argument i can give to hopefully get this religious friend off my back for a while?

Ummm i think they underestimate nature.

religion is nearly impossible to debate .. yet can be a very thought provoking topic to the open mind. I would say that anything can be made to be a valid argument. Just make something up and argue it as truth and you have a debate. Thats whats so funny about arguing intelligent design to me (though I believe in a mix of both) arguments for it and against it are really composed of nothing but theories ... either scientific theory or religious there is still real evidence to prove either one. I would say if you dont like the entertainment of arguing with him or her just tell them what the want to hear that usually works ... or do a little research, maybe "make up" some statistics and facts and keep the debate alive.

Depends on who you aks but no.
The whole argumant is that things like half-an-eye wouldn't be any use. They don't seem to realise that there was never half-an-eye, just weaker ones and light sensitive spots on bacteria.

Also, they make the mistake of thinking that humans are at the top of the scale, so wrong. And Darwin's word choice doesn't halp either. I once met a guy on this site who thought that natural selection took place during meiosis.

I was reading a facinating book called "the selfish gene".

https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209494981&sr=8-1

It addresses the creation of cell walls, and why complex protiens would create them.

I'm not doing the book a inch of justice but the basis of cell walls was a chemical defence to other complex protiens in competition over a given resource.

The defence of "inteligent design" is that something so complex could possibly happen by accendent.

Come at your friend with this angle.

If you played the lottery every week for the rest of your life you most likly wouldn't win.

But if you played the lottery every week for 3 billion years. You would most likly win a couple times.

Primodial soup (base protiens) + Electricity + Time = life and the bases of DNA

go one

i agree with treebee

Yes and according to Mr HL it lives in his pants

Oh i had a think about this - if we are intelligent design how come god gets the credit, i mean we could have been made by space elves or robots.

Alledgedly Some Imam proved that there's verses of the Koran within the human genome technically it's an apostacy in and of it's self due to the fact that muhammad didn't want people to advance technologically.

I happen to be one of those persons that believes that there is intelligent design involved in creation. My believe is based on faith alone. I base it on my experience as a human beign using my own mind to serve myself to confirm my existence. I believe in an afterlife as well but not necessarily believe in a heaven or hell. I believe that this so called God as we have come to know him because lack of a better definition is beyond anything we can comprehend. God is not a person per se. But, like I stated, it is my beliefs.

The concept of ID is that there is design in all of this. Much of what we see in organisms is hardly well designed. Whatever was available was put to use.

Examples:
The blood vessels feeding our 'well designed' eye are in front of the retina. There is also a layer of neurons over the photo sensitive cells leading to the 'blind spot'.

There is a design flaw in our hearts that can lead to heart failure. This design failure in the way the heart beats has been proven mathematically.

We are not designed, but due to trial and error.

In the arguments for ID, which I have seen, the people who argue for ID use biological examples. I've never seen an example from physics or geology. If the universe has a designer, she must have designed the rocks, the rain, and the second law of motion, as well as the prokaryotes, the eukaryotes, the lions, the tigers, and the bears, "Oh my."

The term "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a thinly disguised pseudonym for God. It was dreamed up by hard-line religionists in the USA for the specific aim of removing evolutionary theory from the school curriculum.

As I understand educational law in the US, schools are required to teach Evolutionary Theory as a science. This puts science in direct conflict with religious doctrine.

The religionists concluded that if they could present an alternative argument to Evolutionary Theory, as a science, which was closely related to religious creationism, then they could remove Darwin from the school curriculum and have two similar doctrines taught both as religion and science. One would complement the other and young people would not be taught any alternative.

There have been a few fledgling attempts to propose such theories in Great Britain too. They have been given very short shrift. Great Britain is a much more secular country than the already strongly fundamentalist USA.

Intelligent Design is a religious argument, merely replacing the word "God" with another name. It's intention is sinister, cynical and quite calculated to prevent American children from being taught any alternative to religious doctrine.

If it is ever allowed to succeed, it will be a major step down the road to turning the USA into a hard line, Christian fundamentalist theocracy.


.