The Fundamental Logic behind 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.

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.

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

The literature on Intelligent Design and Macroevolution suggests that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to Macroevolution. Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species wrote the greatest flaw in his theory was the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, but he thought more would be discovered as time went on. Contrary to Darwin’s belief Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould found that most species exhibit no change in the fossil record and appear in the

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.

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.

I would say that this is inaccurate, since there is proof in history that natural selection exists. Humans might have not always been complex; it is very possible that we simply evolved that way, since those who did not adapt died out. Because of this, we did not necessarily have to have had a creator; we simply evolved into complex individuals over time.

(The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1]). “Whatever effect selection may possibly have had on random processes in later biological reproduction, it is clear beyond any rational argument that chance processes could have never produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all. Life, at the very simplest level conceivable, has absolutely no possibility of having been generated by any other means than special creation by a living Creator.” (H. Morris and J. Morris

In this article the author proposes an argument against the idea of Intelligent Design. Michael Behe is one of the proponents behind Intelligent Design and published a book called Darwin’s Black Box in response to Darwin’s idea of evolution. Behe did not believe that evolution could account for the biochemical complexity of the living cell. Michael Behe claimed that the cilia and flagella are cellular examples for which there is no evolutionary explanation. The cilia and flagella are responsible for cell movement, the cascade of blood clotting proteins, and systems that target proteins to specific sites within the cell, and the production of antibodies.

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.

Michael Behe describes intelligent design as a logical explanation for the things we see in nature, especially with regard to living things, being created by a powerful, hyper-intelligent Creator. He stands to reason that biological components of even the ‘simplest’ cells possess features that are entirely too “irreducibly complex” to have come about by slow, gradual naturalistic processes, and would require the intervention and handiwork of Someone who could build such structures. Even unimaginably small organelles on what are assumed to be the most primitive of bacterial cells such as flagella use incredible mechanisms to steer the cells. They utilize acid to power their 10,000 rpm ‘motor’, something we are hard pressed to create, and are

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

The teleological argument successfully provides proof for the existence of intelligent design by utilizing intricate scientific data in order to demonstrate intent and purpose in the creation of the universe, as opposed to random and highly improbable occurrences.

Indeed, many people find it difficult to imagine how from two elementary notions - random mutation, and the filtering power of the environment - have emerged, over millennia, such marvels as eyes, the wings of birds and the human brain. According to Michael Behe, researcher of biochemistry and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex

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