The case for Intelligent DesignFollow

Someone (I think Joph) already did that. The appendix is a perfect example. A component of the human body which has no function. So... Either it's something that did have function at one point, but no longer does, or something that is "developing" function. In either case, while it's presence does provide a minor negative (it can burst and cause death in a small percentage of people), it's negative effect on the organism is not sufficient to preven reproduction.


That is the ultimate failure of the ID "science". It makes a blanket assumption that all the parts of every organism are impossible to generate "naturally". It states as fact that those complex structures could not develop because they rely on too many other functions being in place, so if you remove one, the whole thing fails. But this assumes that the function that complex component fills would make it impossible for the organism to survive if it were missing. And that's absolutely untrue.

There's a web site someone linked many ages ago that did a really good job of explaining the flaws of ID (and most arguments against evolutionary theory). It mentioned some specific examples and showed how it was quite possible for a complex structure like the eye to develop gradually over time without negatively impacting the organism at all. In fact, in the case of the eye, we can find numerous examples of organisms with "eyes" at all stages of eye development, from simple patches of light sensing skin cells all the way to complex eyes like those found in humans. Clearly, each of those organisms is viable *right now* and so clearly an organism could certainly evolve from one type of eye to another without negatively impacting its survival (and in fact likely improving it's survival in the long run).


Most of the "flaws" that ID tries to point out about evolution aren't really scientific flaws, but are just things that can be made to seem to be flaws. It relies heavily on people not really understanding evolution.

What he said.

I'm afraid!

Please guys. Can we all agree on one thing:
Humans were not there when earth started, therefore any information in existence that attempts to explain the occurence is only a theory. It can never be proven either way. I, for one, believe that God intelligently designed the big bang.

I was just reading in my old Plant Bio textbook the other day about primitive single-cell Euglenids (a sort of primitive algae-like plant) with photosensitive organelles that can determine light from dark. Obviously, it was a dead-end of sorts for the evolution of plants as later plants didn't continue the trend towards growing eyes and they don't really help the Euglenids any (some actually feed on other material as they lack chloroplasts for photosynthesis so the "eyes" don't help them find light energy) -- it's just something that happened along the evolutionary route.

When they start teaching Aesop in high school biology, you'll have a good point.

Personally, I think they should teach Kipling's Just-So stories. The one about The Elephant's Child is an excellent study in Lamarckism.

Edited, Mon Oct 17 21:11:26 2005 by Jophiel

Lady DSD didn't say "in school" she said "in science class," which is a point that has been made again and again and again here, that a faith-based theory has no business being espoused in a science class, because it doesn't teach the principles of science, which is what the kids are taking the class to learn in the first place.

If someone were proposing an Intelligent Design philosophy course, it would be an entirely different matter. But the issue is that ID proponents are trying to shoehorn in a faith-based theory into a biology science class.

Unless they had a legitimate scientific point to make in doing so, that was just stupid and parents would have every right to complain.

Even though they have been termed “laws” they are still just theories (tested hypotheses that have not been falsified). While current testing may support that they are true, future testing may require redefining the “laws.”



By definition you can not provide scientific support for faith-based ideology. Faith does not require scientific support, it simply requires devotion to ones beliefs.



WRONG! Current evolutionary theory does not espouse that man evolved from monkey. We are more closely related to apes and chimps, even then we did not evolve from them. Evolutionary theory suggests that we evolved from some unknown common ancestor to apes, hence the term “missing link.”


As it stands Intelligent Design is something that should be taught in a “worldviews” course, not biology. I for one think it’s high time we had a course for high school kids that would expose them to various belief systems, showing commonalities and differences, while not evangelizing any one.