Is intelligent design science?

Briefly, my response. I don't have time for an extended one.

To be honest, I can't remember where I heard this, and don't have time to look it up right now.

But each species is distinct. If we evolved from apes, why is there no species that is 9/10 ape and 1/10 human, and so on. To the best of my knowledge (which I admit, may be flawed), there should be creatures in many different stages of evolution. There are plenty of fossils of individual species of dinosaurs, for example, but none that are "between species," rather than the spread that you would expect from evolution.

Changes within a species are entirely different than changing from one species to another. For example, Darwin's Finches' beaks change seasonally (that is, birds with certain shapes of beaks do better an are more likely to survive), but they are all still Darwin's Finches. Beaks are longer some years and shorter others, but still basically similar with similar purposes.

From your source:

We are distinct in the fact that our intelligence by far surpasses any other species. Surely intelligence is a useful trait, and would develop at least somewhat with evolution? There is a vast leap between human intelligence and that of any other creature. Why wouldn't animals that are close to us in the evolutionary chain share at least some of our intelligence. The closest examples of intelligence in other species that I am aware of (apes learning sign language, several species using sticks as tools), are nowhere near the sophistication achieved by man.

It is separate from evolution, but some sort of explanation is necessary to explain the beginning of time. Do you prefer a different explanation. And to be succinct: where/what did the Big Bang come from?

 

The question needs to be asked as multiple potential US Presidential candidates want it taught in science classrooms and many people may agree with the (most likely faulty) logic that they back up this desire with.

 

Yes.

We didn't evolve from apes; we are apes!

I don't think you understand what a species is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Again, you don't understand what a species is. Darwin's finches are composed of over a dozen avian species.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_02.html

Yes, we are very intelligent, and yes, we developed this intelligence via evolutionary means.

Perhaps not, but it is not our intelligence that has defined us as a species, but rather our ability to organize ourselves into functioning societies. You must remember, it was only several thousand years ago that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers with no time at all to discover the technology that would allow them to move past these primitive beginnings.

I don't know; it's a question that physicists are working to solve. Seeing as you seem to have all the answers, where did it come from?

 

Umm.... I'm not sure how to respond to this. Could you elaborate on why exactly we are apes?

I stand corrected

Once again, I stand corrected. The point remains, however, that they are still finches. There is change, certainly, not to an entirely different animal. No one has ever observed macro-evolution to my knowledge, nor tested it (I know, it's just so gosh darn slow).

Why only humans? A more intelligent animal is more likely to survive, and it is pretty obvious where our intelligence has put us, considering our physical frailty...



Perhaps not, but it is not our intelligence that has defined us as a species, but rather our ability to organize ourselves into functioning societies. You must remember, it was only several thousand years ago that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers with no time at all to discover the technology that would allow them to move past these primitive beginnings.

But it is our intelligence that allows us to create and take the complex and diverse roles that form our functioning societies. They build on each other. Why are humans unique in their development of extensive and complex society, when it is clearly beneficial for survival? Certainly other animals have some form of organization, but nowhere near the degree that humans do.


I don't know; it's a question that physicists are working to solve. Seeing as you seem to have all the answers, where did it come from?[/QUOTE]

I wasn't aware that I had all the answers, and I make no such claim. Clearly you don't either, nor do I expect anyone to.

 

Evolution certainly has empirical evidence, yet it does not give a viable explanation how the universe began or cycles. This is a main reason many take comfort in intelligent design.

 

Evolution isn't designed to tell the tale of how the Universe began, nor is Intelligent Design (dependent on which sect you believe in). Intelligent Design rivals both Abiogenesis and Evolution. The Big Bang Theory stands with God.

The Big Bang Theory: How the Universe came to be.
Abiogenesis: How life came to be from no life.
Evolution: How life evolved when there is life.

 

Actually, this is incorrect. The big bang theory explains how the universe grew, but does not cover its original creation.

God/Creator: How the universe and people came to be
The Big bang theory: How the universe grows

One is more all-encompassing and described in a single chapter of a book, a reason people like to believe it

 

True, the Big Bang Theory can only account for the Universes expansion from an extremely small ball of energy.

The Existence has always existed axiom covers the very very very start, however.

Still, on a side note I find it incredibly hypocritical that one can say that God is the only explanation for the creation of the Universe because something cannot come from nothing, yet, they cite God can.

 

I think the unknown is what God originally represented when the concept of a higher being was created. People failed to see a logical possibility for their existence so came up with a creator-like figure. The idea of actual "religions" with specifics derived from that. However, I do agree that it is still naive to assume a higher creator of sorts must be necessary, yet people take comfort in the fact. It gives life purpose, after all.

Also, in regards to the big bang theory: I think it is much more plausible to see what we have today evolving from a small ball of energy than a small ball of energy evolving from nothing.

That's were the issue lies with many. They seek more than knowing how we evolved, they seek knowing how what we evolved got there in the first place. As both of those are covered by intelligent design, people prefer to accept something that is in all probabilities incorrect yet that gives an explanation for that which they cannot make sense of.

I hope this is not aimed at me, I am not a subscriber to a religion. Yet I would refer you to what I said above. A physics text doesn't have the all the answers that religion gives. Are religions answers derived from absurd illogical thoughts? Yes. But do people still believe in them because they provide simple, comfortable answers? Of course.

 

Intelligent design isn't science. Science needs empirical evidence and solid proof of existence. That isn't the reason the GOP wants it taught, rather that the GOP doesn't want science put in the heads of religious children, and this is a weak point in science.

Remember that this suggestion is both intolerant to some religions, and violates the US constitution 1st amendment.

 

Ape is not a species. It is a scientific classification that all of the great apes (chimps, gorillas, etc) and humans fall into.

 

...note the irony?

 

This is an extremely powerful argument that many people simply write off even though the truth of it is obvious. Only a mentally disabled person can say that they do not trust their senses. If you can walk, you are trusting your sight and your sense of feeling and balance to be right, all the time. Now, you will assume this until it is proven otherwise (your drunk and can't walk or you go blind, etc). Science is an extension of these assumptions that are built into us. You use your senses that you already trust to test your theory. If someone can show that there is a way to make it not work and every time you do it that way it doesn't work you are not going to believe that your senses are misleading you for that test every time. You are going to assume your test is wrong even though the first choice could be true. Thus, anyone saying that you can't prove a theory is extremely shallow if they can not see the inherit flaw in having to assume your senses work correctly, not knowing they do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

You don't know what macroevolution is, either. Darwin's finches are an example of macroevolution that has occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Every animal has it's own way of survival. Why can only cheetahs run at 70 mph, given that a fast animal is more likely to survive? The prerequisites for the evolution of intelligence are numerous; it would only make sense that very few animals have met them.

Again, there are many different ways to survive. The development of intelligence is only one of many paths to success.

So why bring it up?

 

They don't seek knowledge, they seek a simple explanation.

Ehh, I somewhat disagree with this if you are talking about religion, as religious people do not promote religion, which is quite probably a fabrication, for the purpose of lying. People have no problem believing "convenient truths", even if they make little or no logical sense. They also might believe in something simply because they have been brought up with the thing being repeated as true. Would you argue that everyone who believes in a religion either has a mental disease (easily disprovable) or is an abject coward, let alone any more cowardly than anyone else? Even as an atheist, I would disagree with that statement.

True, but irrelevant? In all major scriptures, God will only save you if you live your life to its fullest and abide by certain morals and other such rules.

It gives a possibility for people to believe in, which serves as an answer for those people. Yet I have to agree that religion give no actual "answers", just the illusion of answers.

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism