The version of Intelligent Design typically used by proponents of ID (the idea that ID is a better describes the world than evolution) has serious problems and a lot evidence against it.
The most serious problem is that it's fundamentally flawed; it starts with a conclusion then searches for evidence to prove it. This is the opposite of science, which start out with observations and facts, and then makes conclusions based on evidence.
But then there's direct evidence against it:
1) Vestigial organs or body parts are found in many organisms around the world. While I could cite many examples of useless body parts, like male nipples in humans, let's look at the Island Rail:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/inaccessible-island-rails-history
This bird is roughly the size of a canary; it has wings but can't fly. Why would a designer give wings to a small bird that don't work? It's nonsensical from an ID perspective, but makes more sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the bird has no natural predators and therefor lost the ability to fly over time due to lack of need for it. Flying takes energy that the bird doesn't need to waste on that island.
2) Plastic-eating bacteria.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/10/the-race-to-develop-plastic-eating-bacteria/?sh=5704b3d37406
These bacteria were discovered by chance, outside of a factory, to have evolved the ability eat and metabolize plastic. This is a trait that was clearly NOT designed. This bacteria can only digest a very specific type of plastic, which is the type most beverages in stores are sold in; this is because that's the type of plastic that was around when these bacteria evolved that ability.
Intelligent design completely fails here. We have clear proof of a trait that only evolution can explain, and that an "intelligent designer" clearly did not create.
@vivify saidPlus, what exactly is the premise of "intelligent design"?
The version of Intelligent Design typically used by proponents of ID (the idea that ID is a better describes the world than evolution) has serious problems and a lot evidence against it.
The most serious problem is that it's fundamentally flawed; it starts with a conclusion then searches for evidence to prove it. This is the opposite of science, which start out with obse ...[text shortened]... a trait that only evolution can explain, and that an "intelligent designer" clearly did not create.
Perhaps: "some highly intelligent being somehow designed all these life forms, using means we admittedly do not, and can not understand?"
Can they do better on the definition?
@bigdogg saidThe premise is that ID is a better explanation for life or the universe than biological or cosmological evolution.
Plus, what exactly is the premise of "intelligent design"?
Perhaps: "some highly intelligent being somehow designed all these life forms, using means we admittedly do not, and can not understand?"
Can they do better on the definition?
As already shown, this is clearly false.
The clepto slug:
https://www.businessinsider.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
This slug gained genes from algae into its DNA, which it then passed on to its offspring. The algae genes were not put there but a designer into the slug's DNA; these genes are yet another trait that clearly wasn't put there by an "intelligent designer".
Elements are created by stars:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/make-an-element/
Almost all of the elements in the universe originated in the high-pressure hearts of stars or during a star's violent death. Other elements, like francium and plutonium, are only produced in trace amounts by the decay of uranium
Yet ANOTHER example of something created by unguided process that ID clearly can't take credit for. Stars make almost all the elements in the universe; some elements not made in stars are created through the decay of other elements.
@athousandyoung saidExactly. For example, were rainbows designed? Or are they simply an accident of refracted light?
The biggest flaw in ID is that it assumes people can tell designed objects from those which are not designed. But if ID is true, NOTHING is not designed!
Since ID is a Christian idea, they would argue they were purposely designed because the Bible said God made one as a gift to Noah.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
@vivify saidThere is a particular parasite that overtakes the brain of an ant, turning it into a kind of zombie. It causes the ant to climb the nearest tree and out to the end of a branch. Spores then burst out of the ant's head to the forest floor beneath.
Exactly. For example, were rainbows designed? Or are they simply an accident of refracted light?
Since ID is a Christian idea, they would argue they were purposely designed because the Bible said God made one as a gift to Noah.
The idea that such a parasite was designed by a perfectly loving deity is truly horrendous.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOr the tarantula hawk wasp, which paralyzes its victim so it can then lay eggs inside inside the spider, so the larva can eat the spider alive for the next few weeks.
There is a particular parasite that overtakes the brain of an ant, turning it into a kind of zombie. It causes the ant to climb the nearest tree and out to the end of a branch. Spores then burst out of the ant's head to the forest floor beneath.
The idea that such a parasite was designed by a perfectly loving deity is truly horrendous.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The idea that such a parasite was designed by a perfectly loving deity is truly horrendous.
No it is not.
It could be a very wise way to REMIND sinful, proud, rebellious people, that something has gone wrong in their "God free" world they chose.
Parasitic spiritual forces in a rebel world is shadowed by natural parasitic organism. The horrors of some natural victims reminds and educates rebellious men of spiritual victimization of equal alarm.
That God placed in nature reminders that all is not well in a world where men revolted to be independent from God. That is His love and faithfulness meant for our reflection and repentance on the dangers that face us in not being in His will.
@sonship saidWell, that's convenient.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
The idea that such a parasite was designed by a perfectly loving deity is truly horrendous.
No it is not.
It could be a very wise way to REMIND sinful, proud, rebellious people, that something has gone wrong in their "God free" world they chose.
Parasitic spiritual forces in a rebel world is shadowed by natural parasitic ...[text shortened]... ulness meant for our reflection and repentance on the dangers that face us in not being in His will.
Anything you don't like about the design, you blame on man.
Anything you do like, you credit to God.
Completely evidence-proof!
No wonder you lot hated the advent of Evolution so much. Things couldn't stay this easy. You had to learn how to process and argue evidence.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
@sonship saidI think an omniscient God would find a better way.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
The idea that such a parasite was designed by a perfectly loving deity is truly horrendous.
No it is not.
It could be a very wise way to REMIND sinful, proud, rebellious people, that something has gone wrong in their "God free" world they chose.
Parasitic spiritual forces in a rebel world is shadowed by natural parasitic ...[text shortened]... ulness meant for our reflection and repentance on the dangers that face us in not being in His will.
As an aside, was there a second creation? Did the brain parasites not exist in the Garden of Eden? Did God sit down afterwards and design them as a reminder to sinful man? Is that what you believe?!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I think an omniscient God would find a better way.
A better way according to who?
We often as humans do not care for anything except efficiency.
Our "better way" might care nothing for anything except our own skin.
God's way may have priorities in mind what He deems are better for His priorities.
Could there be a better way for man to be saved than for the Son of God to have to be crucified? Could there be more efficient way not involving what Jesus had to endure?
I am not as quick to assume an eternal and omniscient God who has granted free will to men didn't do things in the best way.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
As an aside, was there a second creation? Did the brain parasites not exist in the Garden of Eden? Did God sit down afterwards and design them as a reminder to sinful man? Is that what you believe?!
At this stage I believe that the "garden" into which man was placed had an enemy. This is pretty obvious. That means that when Adam was told to have dominion and to guard the garden, there were potential bad things lurking around from a previous world.
The first question that came to me in reading Genesis was probably - "Wait a minute. If this is suppose to be a paradise then why in this paradise was there this
God opposing, slandering, lying, deceiving contrarian personality poised to ruin everything? What is the serpent doing there if this is an Eden of paradise?"
When on the sixth day all was pronounced by God as "very good" (Gen. 1.31). It as not "very good" that there still existed a Devil, an adversary, a Slanderer with his followers in the atmosphere and in the water. Their previous evil system enjoyed a revival at Adam's failure and disobedience.
But what was very good was that if man would remain in harmony with God any opposing forces would be under dominion and eventually executed by the man in God's image and likeness who was deputy authority over all creation.
So while I cannot say specifically what the parasites were doing. Just like I cannot say what the "thorns and thistles" were doing. But man was to GUARD the garden from negative things that might come to damaged God's interests on the earth.
Adam was not obedience to remain under God's authority. And he came under the authority of the adversary unleashing lurking dangers which he had been ordained to have dominion over.
"Thorns and thistles" I think are an abbreviated sign and indication of the rampant spreading and infesting of these potential problems in nature within and without the man.
"Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil will you eat of it all the days of your life. And thorns and thistles will it bring forth to you. . . " (Gen. 3:10).
And other bothersome, loathsome, damaging things of all kinds.
In the manifestation of the sons of God not even a leaf will be bothersome.
Not a bug, not a mosquito, not a germ, not a virus will taunt humanity.
Every atom, every molecule will be glorifying God unto eternity.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
@sonship saidEven as a mere mortal I can think of better ways to remind mankind of his sin than creating brain parasites to turn ants into zombies.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
I think an omniscient God would find a better way.
A better way according to who?
We often as humans do not care for anything except efficiency.
Our "better way" might care nothing for anything except our own skin.
God's way may have priorities in mind what He deems are better for His priorities.
Could there be a ...[text shortened]... ume an eternal and omniscient God who has granted free will to men didn't do things in the best way.