View Single Post
Old 08-02-2005, 03:24 AM   #4 (permalink)
Jackie Pies
is climbing a beanstalk
Jackie Pies's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Join Date: Nov 2003
My Local Time: 03:27 AM
Location: one girl, i drove through 3 states wearing her head as a hat
Posts: 5,922
vBookie Cash: 500
Casino Cash: $469
Rep Power: 21 Jackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental ChampionJackie Pies is the Intercontinental Champion

Points: 17,157, Level: 57
Points: 17,157, Level: 57 Points: 17,157, Level: 57 Points: 17,157, Level: 57
Activity: 16%
Activity: 16% Activity: 16% Activity: 16%

Sorry, Intelligent Design is not evolution. nor is it science. Like I said at the bottom, it's basically creationism w/ a new name and some new terms.
here's a decent enough def:

Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change. Ostensibly its main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents
Proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate design
Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science, but creationism.[2] While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam's Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help.

Critics point to the fact that implicit in ID is a redefinition of natural science

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.


a much shorter def:
Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer. The majority of ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. However, ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference"[1] lists God or an alien life force as two possible options. Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience. Both the Intelligent Design concept and the associated movement have come under considerable criticism.

  Reply With Quote