I believe in Intelligent anything not just design

I do because I have faith in God and in His word-the Bible. <:))))<>< PS: Just a thank-you to the troll, considering what everybody on this site says-you must be a Christian, because they are the only ones that down rate opinions. So I say thank-you for proving them correct AGAIN!! Alright so I'm being a little sarcastic, duh!!!!!!!! Gee, guess I am being a little judgemental-but that fits the profile of Christians too, huh? <:))))<><

If you're talking about God creating the universe, then yes, I believe in Intelligent Design. The universe itself and the way it is made is proof that the LORD exists and is the Creator. I hope that this is helpful. -In the service of King Jesus Thank you and God bless you!

I don't. I believe in the Theory of Evolution. Until something definite - or that makes more sense to me - comes along, the Theory of Evolution is what I choose to believe in.

Eddie Izzard pretty well describes my thoughts on "Intelligent Design"... enjoy.

Many do, but I do not. The underlying premise of Intelligent Design is that the universe and life is so complex that it must have had a designer. This simply adds another layer to the question about where the universe/life originates, as the Designer is intelligent, thus complex, and would by the ID argument also require yet another Intelligent Designer (to have designed and created the first intelligent designer). This some logic goes on and on indefinitely. I believe in evolution, as it has mounds of evidence. Micro-evolution is provable and observable. I must admit, though, that the Theory of Unintelligent Design has it's merits: "The argument is that because of all the problems in the world, the Flying Spaghetti Monster must have been drunk, careless, etc. when he first created life. A list of ten examples is given to support this, including such things as disco music, Jar Jar Binks, and the decline of passenger pigeons due to the popular McPidgin Sandwich sold at McDonald's." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Unintelligent_Design

I certainly do. Actually, that is probably not true... I KNOW THERE WAS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!! CONSIDER: EVOLUTION?? I guess that for myself, I do not just Believe it NOT to be true, I have literally PROVEN that it is NOT - Scientifically! There are 2 "animals" that specifically and comprehensively disprove evolutionary theory beyond all doubt: Snake & Man. WHY THEM?? … and … HOW?? you may ask. They are Precise opposites in everything - both behaviourally and anatomically!! As a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist, I undertook a comparative study over nearly 10 years, discovering, then proving, this great, yet simple, phenomenon ‘WHY DO YOU SAY THEY ARE OPPOSITE??’ you may ask. You may also query, "Well, if they are precise opposites, Why do they both have backbones and breathe air, and have many other apparently similar internal organs?” In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science. What I am saying here is that because of their size, and land-dwelling nature, etc., they are necessarily Both vertebrate, and require some similarity in alimentary system, etc., simply to live efficiently and to satisfy the requirements of effective survival according to their overall land-dwelling nature. (Most specifically, I speak particularly of venomous ground snakes in this study.) There, after satisfying the fundamental laws of survival nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all possible differentiating factors among the beasts that exist. In fact, a very close examination will reveal that snakes cannot be more unlike other beasts, either, if they tried! For that matter, neither could Man be more different than everything else!! ... and that is, despite all the claims of genetics, etc., that various species [of ape, etc.] possess 99% similarity with the DNA of Man. Despite all this supposed similarity, there is nothing that really well compares to Man at all among the beasts that exist - especially, behaviourally. Now this extraordinary discovery of total opposites tends to disprove random chance mutation – per evolutionary theory. It also confirms a deliberation in Creation – it tends to most powerfully support that there is a God in nature – determining the nature of matters and designing them, according to His own purposes. Similarly, it also powerfully supports the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, wherein it was the very serpent, itself, in fact, which was used by Satan to oppose God to Eve. As you may recall, as a result of this act by the serpent, God cursed all things – changing them – but none so greatly as the snake!! [See Holy Bible] Obviously, as this study shows, among all the changes that were made was the symbolic representation re the snake that epitomized this very act of its Opposition to Man and God!! A Master Achievement re early Biblical Proofs … would you not think?? God, only, can be thanked for it, under His direction, guidance and revelation! OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ANSWERER RE MY DISCOVERY: You don't appear to understand the math involved in evolution or genetics. We may have 99% similar DNA to a Chimpanzee, but we also have 80% similar DNA to a banana. MY RESPONSE: denidowi May, 11 2008 at 05:10 AM [Edit] Well, really, I DO believe I understand the maths in genetics! As a mathematician myself, what you're saying is precisely what I am saying. The claims by geneticists that we all (Man and Beast, more particularly) spring from the same evolutionary derivatives/tree/chain simply because our DNA's are so alike - especially, chimps and humans being so close is my particular point - is precisely why I say that that % DNA similarity does not make us similar or of the same background – especially when you consider the considerably close % of the banana – at 80% sameness. Despite the DNA similarity, the point is that this DNA similarity has to actually evidence properly in nature – Both, behaviourally and anatomically. Bananas?? I don’t think so! The similarity re DNA merely proves that ALL life has to have certain characteristics and similarity of feature simply in order to simply satisfactorily survive alive in nature – so that it exists efficiently. After all, God is a God of law and order. Snakes and Man, therefore, share DNA similarities, so does the banana, but only so far as to make them live effectively in nature. There, the similarity totally ends! Specie-wise, Man and snake are precise Opposites – even among their similar survival features – lung/s, heart, mouth, alimentary canal, etc. – there is great opposition between the two. ENJOY JUST A BRIEF LIST RE OPPOSITION BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE FROM THE BOOK, “TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!” (Denis Towers) Horizontal flat ambulation vs upright, vertical. Lies flat along the ground vs. stands erect Indented penis (lies pushed into the inside of the body when ‘flaccid’) vs external Forked divergent tongue vs convergent [narrowing] While on the tongue: no apparent taste buds vs Yes…. Tongue: Much external time vs mostly within mouth Flattened head vs domed high skull No appendages vs greatest appendicular/axial skeletal ratio of all vertebrates In rest: human - supine, straight, or zig-zagged position vs coiled, etc In movement: snake – zig-zagged, random vs direct, deliberate Ears? Has none vs … External nose? Has none vs … Vocalization? Has none – is a ‘hiss & a byword’ vs… Eyes? Venomous groundsnakes: mainly monocular vs binocular Food & living practices? Nocturnal vs diurnal Hibernates & seasonal vs … Dormant hidden lifestyle vs active [!], healthy[!] open Almost still sex for hours vs acceleratory [in health & vitality] Eyes covered-hidden by own skin [that is, internal, weak] vs momentary eyelid… Audio: internal [almost non-existent] vs eternal apparati, a prime communication means Smell: internal, powerful vs external [weak, by comparison with beasts, generally] Touch: thick scaly skin - insensitive vs great sensitivity… TASTE?? Apparently, non-existent vs opposite… Multi-coloured vs…uniformity Tremendous variation in size [6” – 30’] vs…comparative uniformity [in health] Copulating penis? Hooked & downward pointing vs. upward, erect, etc. Only erectile structure/s [fangs] initiate death vs only erectile structure initiates life 2 peni vs singular Mainly [deadly groundsnakes, that is] oviparous vs viviparous Consumption? All in 1 great gulp vs boundless chewing of small pieces Head 1st vs. rarely eat heads And the hits just keep on coming between the opposition of Man & snake!! VESTIGIAL APPARATI {the snake – some – have miniscule Internal pelvises, though, in typical opposition, a man’s [a woman’s in particular] is more outwardly obvious. In similar opposite manner, snakes possess outwardly-displayed, tails; Man’s is vestigial in nature}: I almost quite forgot, MvL, thanks for your inadvertent extra point for my cause that snakes present as opposite Man: re the Vestigial structures you point out; I hadn’t thought of it previously. So, Very good ... very good for my cause: Yes; I must admit, I originally pointed out in my ‘work’ that in Opposition to snakes, humans have no tail - and certainly, in outwardly visual terms, this is so. However, I'm glad you highlighted these structures vestigially. You'll note, accordingly [that is, in terms of ‘Opposition between Man and snake’], that the vestigial structures of the snake - its pelvic - lie laterally across its body, whereas, in complete opposition, Man's – his vestigial tail bone – lies vertically, along his longitudinal plane. So, Good point, MvL ... Good inadvertent point for my cause! Further [Behavioural consideration re your observation now]: Man's vestigial apparatus here, assists his "REST" Mode in life – that is, sitting. Snake, in the true Opposition that he seems to epitomize across every feature, uses his vestigial apparati for active purposes – balance in movement and assistance in the sexual act. As most simply curl or coil up in rest, his miniscule pelvis is obviously, not needed for his rest periods! SO ONCE AGAIN, IN DECISIVE MANNER, THE SNAKE HAS PROVEN HIMSELF QUITE OPPOSITE MAN IN ALL THINGS! Good ol’ MvL, God bless him, then proposed that he could also prove that pigeons or dogs were also ‘opposite humans’. I responded in the following manner: You are right, MvL. One thing I learned from all my 9 year research into this matter is that animals are quite unlike humans - if not, opposite humans in so many aspects themselves! In like manner (re my hypothesis), however, snakes appear to be even more unlike anything else that exists on earth than even humans do!! ... including their [supposed] ‘nearest cousins’ (lizards), if you really study them very closely, that is. They are at considerable variation with one another. Whereas, if you made a comparative study of the oppositeness of feature between [say] a cow and a bird, or a snail and a dog, you would not access nearly as many opposites by comparison. Perhaps, somewhat surprising, but true nonetheless! For further clarification, you might try the Book, mentioned above. JUST A SPAT RE A FEW MORE OPPOSITES BETWEEN MAN AND SNAKE: Ratio of Brain size to mouth: extremely low – only a fraction vs. most pronounced of all known creatures [a case of mind over matter, I believe] Sheds its ‘skin’ in 1 whole piece vs. in opposition, not so Snake sleeps with open eyes vs. shut-eye Arrangement of internal organs: Mostly in single file vs. paired Accordingly, lives mostly alone vs. in pairs/families Desserts its young even before birth [eggs] vs. constant nurture and parental nourishment Cold-blooded vs. warm… Head in dirt vs. head nearest the heavens, etc. Here, you have but a mini-list of the all-encompassing complete opposition: Man vs. snake! May God Bless You ALL

I don't really believe in intelligent design. For me it just seems too impossible and irrational just like any other religion. Those so called "proofs" I have read on various sites is all based on one single example and is often based on the religion being true too. For me ID looks like a desperate explanation for those that has begun doubting thier religion.

Yes, I do, because I know the Designer.

Well given the world today I'm not sure I even believe in intelligence! Ok seriously now, I don't believe in intelligent design for two reasons. Firstly, there is not enough evidence to support it, and far too much against it. Evolution is the method by which life has developed, and chemistry is the reason life came about in the first place. Whether people want to believe it or not evolution is about as secure as atomic theory. The many examples given showing that evolution has 'been proved wrong' frequently show a total misunderstanding of the concept. I study thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, and most people accept they know very little about either, but everybody thinks they know a lot about evolution. However, in my experience I don't think that evolution is any simpler to really understand than thermodynamics or quantum mechanics. Too many people think evolution is 'survival of the fittest', it really is nothing like this at all! Secondly, if you study life and organisms at a in depth, even molecular level, you can begin to see some systems that are not efficient. In fact, with a little tinkering we could really improve our bodies! From the perspective of gradual development the human body is amazing, but if you look at us with the eyes or a designer its quite disappointing. So even if life was 'designed' I would be dubious about calling it intelligent.

Nope. Not a chance.

Not I. And just for the record: Evolution isn't something you BELIEVE -- it's something you UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT.

I don't. And I believe Intelligent Design is one of the most arrogant philosophies around. Because it basically says "If I cannot understand how it came about, then only ony a Supernatural Designer could have created it". Basically, the believee in ID is claiming omniscience - idf s/he does not know it, it cannot be known.

I do, and since you didn't ask "why?" I'll end my answer there, without going on a long rant on why the other view is so stupid.

Honestly - I don't know what intelligent design is... but I've studied and believe evolution to be true I know there's a God (whatever you want to call him/her) And I believe there's a reason for everything - even if we don't know what it is.

Things mutate thus evolve. Is that intelligent design?

I believe it was only intended for doing snowflakes.

Well, since I believe in God, yet accept that evolution exists, I don't have much choice do I? What I really believe is that no one knows for sure, and it's likely no one ever will. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me how life on earth started. But I'm the sort of woman who doesn't care how the electricity powers my kitchen light, I just care that when I flip the switch, it's on :D