Michael Behe And Intelligent Design

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.

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?

Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

In the film Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a small, rural town in Dover, Pennsylvania is being analyzed for its Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case. Dover is a school district in Pennsylvania whose school board argued that their students should be aware of Intelligent Design as an alternative to teaching Darwinism. There are several arguments being discussed throughout this documentary. The most expressed argument is whether not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Some other prevailing arguments are the belief that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing, the argument that evolution is neutral to religion, and the argument that evolution should not be questioned no matter what. Questions such as these captivate the mind and makes people wonder what the real truth is.

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

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

b, The idea that God exists and that he is the architect to serve the

Ultimately, Paley’s argument uses an inductive argument to suggest that all things with properties of intelligence and complexity must have an intelligent designer who designs them for a specific purpose.

Evolution proves that there is no reason to credit the design of the universe to God, and therefore, atheists have no reason to believe that God does exist. It is much more logical for atheists to base their beliefs on something that exists rather than on possibilities that have no way of being proven. With that said, atheists can reasonably believe that there is no God or designer of the universe because there is no evidence showing that there is. Using the strength of Darwinian theory, it can be hypothesized that the universe came from no intentional designer. Rather, it came from the unplanned and mindless processes of natural selection. A look into nature reveals such processes; slow and gradual changes have been found in the historical

There are two basic theories in this debate. The first is the historical default, the creation model of origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design infiltrates all things, which implies a designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation, the evolution model of origins. This theory suggests that the intricate design infiltrates all things and is a product of random chance and excessive time.

The two main arguments used in support of Intelligent Design are the arguments from improbability and irreducible complexity. Scientists and philosophers have always been staggered at the sheer multitude of living organisms on Earth. When creationists see this diversity and complexity of life on our planet instead of marvelling at the millions of years it took for an organism to reach the stage it is in, they see the marvellous work of the designer who made all this come to pass. It is of course, not entirely illogical to assume there is a creator. ‘The Watchmaker argument’ is a famous example which is used to justify the existence of a creator.

A multitude of arguments have stemmed from this logical thinking, nevertheless, there are a few dominant arguments that are worth exploring in depth, one such argument being “the argument from design.” While no argument involving God is without flaw, “the argument from design” is an argument worth exploring in depth and in which agreement can be found.

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