ANSWERS: 31
  • Hmm... Don't care for it much. I found its early philosophical expression - William Paley's 'Watchmaker' analogy, the easiest argument to critique and refute when I was studying Philosophy of Religion.
  • I think it's creationism with a fancy new label.
  • i belief intellience comes at a sacrifice
  • That's a non-sequitur, oxymoron, and as they used to say on the old csrtoons mumbo jumbo. Nothing oersonal, you asked and it's just my opinion. Please don't say something nasty.
  • I came to exactly the same conclusion well before it had a name or was a controversy in the news. When I started majoring in Biology in college, it didn't take long to see that what I was learning about DNA didn't jive with what I was learning about statistics unless you suspended the rules of one or the other. I know Richard Dawkins has some mumbo jumbo in Climbing Mount Improbable, but what it boils down to is "if you completely ignore everything you know about statistics and do it my way, you can get from point A to point B. Then a miracle happens and you find yourself at point C.
  • I believe that all things were created by God, but nowhere does it specify the process that He used. Maybe He caused a big bang, maybe, as Darwin mentioned, he simply created a few species with the intention of them evolving from that point. That evolution within species happens is scientific fact. Many believe that science and religion are in opposition. But Science is just the how to what I believe God has done:)
  • Not intelligent enough, apparently.
  • It's all around, within and without you
  • It's like "reality TV". No reality in it.
  • Just a whole lot of mumbojumbo and claptrap made by overly religious people in order to try to mix religion into science in a way I find quite stupid. It has no basis in reality at all. Can never be proven, since it for the most part uses the Bible, a book full of statements that's more or less just adventure.. The Theory of Evolution may not be proven either, but it is much more likely to be true than I.D.
  • My beliefs are that there is no way possible at this time in which intelligent design can either be confirmed or denied. This is why I am agnostic.
  • It's a fantastic PC term for what I'm pretty sure was already a PC term. Or, maybe it's just stupid. Ironic, huh?
  • My thoughts? It's an ill disguised attempt to repackage Creationism. "Pat Robertson: Intelligent design rejection was a vote against God" http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2005/11/radical-cleric-pat-robertson.html Many times those who promote I.D. claim that it's best argument for it- is that it's NOT Creationism. Yet Pat Robertson shows himself, and those he speaks for- what the real motivations of those who promote it are.
  • You can't make something from nothing, so where did it (the universe etc.) all start? Some entity, force, whatever -- that always existed -- had to create it.
  • Intelligent Design is pure bull shit.
  • From what I read it is creationism repackaged so they could legally implement it into the school systems. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
  • Like you say in your question, Intelligent design is just a concept. It's a cheap paint job to cover the faded joke of creationism.
  • I believe it's a big fiasco.
  • It's a steaming pile of bullshit..
  • It's fine as a concept but ludicrous as a 'science'.
  • It's false.
  • If you believe in the concept of God then of course you want to be associated with the word "intelligent". I think who ever came up with that name for the old "creationism" explanation was pretty clever. It makes sense to me that if there really was such a thing as God, he could easily have made fossils and other things to resemble billions of years of evolution, just to trick people. After all, this is the same God who decides which team is going to win the football game, yet allows 20,000 people to starve to death every single day of the year, just to test people and see if they really care, even though he knows in advance exactly what is going to happen. It's all part of the game, isn't it?
  • I believe that belief in the 6+1 day Biblical creation model is not a prerequisite for salvation.
  • The intelligent designer would have to have been intelligently designed too and so on down the line infinitely.
  • it's aparent. you don't see design? you can see the signature of the designer in the dna strand. its rich with complex information that is only lost through natural selection. even richard dawkins admits that we could of been created by some intelligent designer (of course he's leaning toward aliens)
  • I personally believe that the idea is ridiculous but people are allowed to believe whatever they want. What I am against is the idiots that consider ID a scientific theory and want my children to learn about it in science class.
  • From the cosmos down the the molecular level, I have seen no evidence that complex, integrated systems can occur without intelligent manipulation. These systems (and the forces that govern them) are millions of times more complex than the global communications systems I design, but even my comparatively simple systems require intelligence.
  • That's why I am an atheist :-)
  • It was a fair first attempt at showing that evolution had to have a helping hand to beat the odds against it. Personally I prefer something I like to call 'Directed Evolution'. We even have an example of it in the accidental creation and release of a toxic algae into the Mediterranean by some German aquarium enthusiasts.

Copyright 2017, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy