Reflection Paper On Intelligent Design

Creationism has long been ruled out of public education and science. Creationists reject most of modern science in favor of a literal reading of the Bible. They believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and God created everything fully formed (including humans). People in opposition against Intelligent Design think that in the eyes of creationists, the so called “intelligent designer” is God. Meanwhile, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Once Darwin had proposed that the natural processes could have produced every species on this planet, including humans, the creationists felt that this theory took God out of the picture. Centuries later, like many people in Dover, many people in the US agree. Somewhere between a third and half the US population doesn’t accept

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

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools, is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in Genesis, to fit into the ÒblikÓ of the religious fundamentalist. A blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set worldview held by all people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, whose faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a place in the science classroom of public schools.

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

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.

The feud between creationist and scientist about the origins of the universe dates back to the 20’s during the Scopes trial. Scientist are against creationism because there is no evidence to support the theory. Scientist support Charles Darwin’s theory Darwinism, the theory that organisms evolve from simple to complex through minor adaptations over time, because it has held up for more than a century. Rowe’s article expresses how he believes that creationist created intelligent design to take the place of creationism in public schools after the Supreme Court ruled that

And yet, intelligent design theorists and Creationists look at nature and see the work of a divine designer, God, a reflection of his intentional purpose to create the universe. Where their theories are flawed with no real proof, Darwin uses inverse thinking that suggests that important things can indeed stem from unimportant things. Instead of relying on unproven mysteries to prove that God created the universe, evolutionists have scientific evidence to prove that no God was needed to create the universe. As scientific knowledge grows and more evidence of evolution is found, the story of evolution gains more strength, giving atheists more rational reasons to believe that God did not create the

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.

Creationism, it is theory that claims every element in the earth, including living species, are all created by the god as the Bible said, which denies the evolutional theory came up by Charles Darwin. Then, since Darwin’s evolutionary theory is testable and make solid predictions whereas creationism cannot be tested nor predict precisely, it has been considered as a pseudoscience. However, recently there is a Ph.D. Biochemist bring creationism theory back to the audience again, his name is Duane Tolbert Gish from University of California. Dr. Duane T. Gish has written several books and articles to support creationism, and the most famous one is Evolution: The Fossil Say No!, which published in 1978. In his article, he denied the evolutionism since he claims there is insufficient fossil evidence to support Darwin’s theory, and which would prove creationism is real.

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,

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist Christians. Most Christians,

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

When thinking about the origin of life, there are two main points one can come to, Intelligent Design or Natural Process (Ken Ham, 2008). “According to the former view, supernatural intervention was essential for the creation of life; according to the latter, living organisms could form spontaneously—for example, from the mud of the Nile” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). Creation can be defined as the original bringing into existence of the universe by God (“Creation”, n.d.). Intelligent design can be defined as “certain features” (Ken Ham, 2008). Intelligent Design can also be explained by finding features of the earth and explaining them by an intelligent cause ("Intelligent Design", n.d.). Creationism usually starts with religious