Intelligent Design Research Paper

The two-hour special documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, features the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case in 2004. It captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Some members of the community believed that not only Darwinism, but also a so called theory, Intelligent Design, should be taught in their public high school. It was a battle between the two theories. It forced neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. The community itself was broken half and half on the controversial issue.

An evolutionist feels that there are no grounds for proof. However, the Bible should serve as some sort of written proof for the theory of intelligent design. It has been proven that this document has been passed down through many centuries and seems to be eye witness accounts of occurrences during the beginning of creation. Speaking from an Intelligent Design point of view, these theorists believe that the two theories should embrace the other?s belief. According to Dembski, a specialist of the belief on intelligent design, this theory keeps an open mind and it is entirely agnostic on the subject of religion. Dembski hopes to detect either a biblical god or an earlier race of aliens. Either will be acceptable to him. This theory simply states that it is not possible for the universe to implode out of nowhere. This universe had to begin with some sort of creator.

The question whether creation or Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools is applicable to America’s society today. Most school districts would rather avoid both topics due to causing arguments among students and teachers and leading to uncomfortable conversations. Evolution is the belief that one form of life gives rise to the next, like a tree with branches and twigs. Darwin called it “descent with modification” which is now called “natural selection”. Natural Selection, in the film, is said to be small changes occurring over time that can result in new speciations. If you think about it, evolution does not say anything about the creation of life. It only

Thesis: It is patently absurd to argue that creationism and / or intelligent design deserve a place in public school textbooks in the "science" chapter or in any way near to the chapter on evolution. The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of expression, so all faiths and denominations have the absolute right to worship and believe as they

If approved, the bill would require intelligent design to be taught alongside any evolutionary theory in order to present an ?explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin?s view?. Additionally, it would require a statement to be read that expresses doubts about Darwinist theories (Baksa 1).

Moreover, today’s criticisms and denials also come from all quarters in various forms such as creationism, Li 2 neo-creationism, and intelligent design. Even though several points exist on either side of the creationism versus evolution argument, notwithstanding the gaps on both sides of the divide, it becomes apparent that the theory of evolution has some serious fundamental flaws. Creationism is the belief that concept and design require a creator (Sarfati and Mathews). When applied to detecting design in the universe and life, this principle becomes a more reasonable explanation to believe in a higher power as the Creator or Designer of both (Sarfati and Mathews). Unlike the concept of evolution, which remains unproven and continues to lack even the slightest experimental or observational support, the creationist argument is sound because it argues against a set of misunderstandings about evolution that people are right to consider ludicrous (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini).

Since both theories have not been proven as scientific fact, it is best to teach both intelligent design and macroevolution in public high schools. Macroevolution is currently taught as fact in schools and has many flaws that most students in high school never learn about such as irreducible complexity, gaps in the fossil record, and the fossil record explosion. Many students believe that since macroevolution is taught as fact it has been proven with many studies of current evolution between species. But in reality there has been no current evidence which supports macroevolution. For example, dog breeders have cross bred dogs for generations but with all of the generations a dog has never changed species. Although there are many different breeds of dogs today, a dog has never turned into a different animal as a result of breeding. Many macroevolution supporters refute this saying that it takes thousands of years and reproductions to show the changes between species. So fruit flies were examined over the course of 600 generations (equivalent to 12,000 years of human evolution) by University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke to test this wording, and few changes were found within the species and no species to species change was observed. Even with the findings of the fruit

The study of science is defined as that which deals with the workings of the physical world we are able to observe and measure. The origin of life, however, is a topic that science has long grappled with, despite the impossibility of observing or proving any origins theory in a strictly scientific manner. Today, the widely accepted theory of life’s beginning is the theory of Evolution by mutation and natural selection, or Neo-Darwinism. Most people in our modern society accept this theory at face value because it is popular with the majority of scientists, but it must always be taken into account that our origins cannot be proven scientifically and that, in fact, the theory of Evolution is not the only or even the most logical theory

There is proof of this evolution all around us. Man itself has evolved over thousands and thousands of years in direct relation to the changing environment surrounding them. There are facts and proof to back up the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that it is the only way that explains development of living things.

Intelligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution. Intelligent design is the belief that organisms or other things did not evolve, but were created just as they are now. In the video, the science teachers of Dover High School refuse to read a one minute statement to their classes explaining that intelligent design is an alternative theory to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Their refuting argument were as follows,

I believe intelligent design was not apart of the beginning the humankind. Studies have shown evolution, and we see what the results have been through evolution, so applying evolution to humans would make sense. On the contrary, using evolution, you can only trace it back so far before hitting a wall and asking questions no one can answer. At this point many people turn to faith, or intelligent design, saying how it’s the only answer. However, it is not. It is not even an answer. It is a theory that is based on people saying “Well there is nothing else that makes sense, so this must be it.” Evolution is also a theory, but it’s a theory that has been backed up with research and study. I believe that when

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design to our youth can be done in a way that is neither opinion based nor completely fact based, but may hold some risk of personal interpretation. The first thing needed to be considered is how can children of the middle school age range grasp such a deep subject and have the capacity to reach their own conclusion. Information found regarding the development of children in this developmental range was found in the book titled "Characteristics of Middle Grade Students,” Caught in the Middle by the Sacramento Department of Education. It was found that students of this age hold a variety of learning attributes that support the belief that children can handle both sides of this controversial issue. Some

Will believers in Intelligent Design be able to embrace the incredibly promising and innovative solutions outlined in Luke Bawazer’s Tedtalk while rejecting Darwin’s theory? No, I do not believe the supporters of Intelligent Design will embrace his solutions. Even though the research is leading to new materials, with electronic functions, that can possibly power our infrastructure while at the same time reduce pollutants in our environment. By accepting the solutions, supporters of Intelligent Design will have to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution if they want to embrace Bawazer’s solutions for creating new biomaterials using DNA.

taken away part of the Earth, right. By taking away that part of the Earth, the "machine" is

Eighty-seven percent of American scientists believe that a series of random chemical and biological events produced mankind. However, the philosophical "theory" of evolution has no solid evidence, whereas creation can be proven. Science is supposed to be based on observation, right? The best theories satisfy the test of experimentation. No one can test if evolution happened. Non one can prove that evolution actually happened. But what evidence can we place against evolution?