The only real evidence for inteliigent design is that evolution does not explain the creation of life. That's not scientific evidence. Until there is actual scientific evidence, then intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
Honestly, I don't see how there can be actual proof for intelligent design, as the whole idea is untestable.
and a human will always just be a human, and will have the DNA code of a human....one can not suddenly become the other, no matter how many years they on on earth, be it 100 or 4 billion
Ok then, if you believe in DNA, you'd know something extremely important. DNA is not always perfect. It can mutate. And because of these mutations, animals including humans change gradually over time. Here's an example:
When whites were bringing slaves over to America on those boats, many of them died. The ones that survived are the ones that had the genes that allowed them to hold more salts in their bodies, which helped nourish them in the absence of food. And because of that, most African Americans today have a high risk for high blood pressure. That same principle applies to all other animals. If a few monkeys are born with a gene that mutates their pelvises to the point that it allows them to stand and walk comfortably on two legs, and they breed making more of said monkeys, then boom, new species. But that could take millions of years. Oh and let's not forget that Human and Chimpanzee DNA is 98% identical.
If every creature stayed the same forever, we'd all be doomed. The Earth's climate is always changing. The animals that can survive the changes, have genes that are worth passing on, while the ones that die, should die. That helps prevent the species from going completely extinct. Animals, including humans, need to evolve. If we didn't, all life on Earth would have been gone a loooooong time ago.
i believe God created the world in the 6 days the bible says, but i dont think the days can be taken litterally. this is what i feel this is from a web site...
"The "days" of creation in Genesis 1 cannot be literal because of the parallel account of creation in Genesis 2. After God put man in the Garden, He paraded the animals before Adam, who "gave names to all the cattle...birds...and to every beast of the field" (2:20). Adam, however, had no helper, and God created Eve for him. Some amount of time must have passed between Adam's creation, the naming of the animals, and then Eve's creation. But if the days of Genesis 1 are interpreted literally, all of these events must have occured in one 24 hour day, because on the sixth day "God created man...male and female He created them" (1:27). Because of all the things that sixth day as described in Genesis 2, the sixth day of Genesis 1 cannot be literal.
THE DAYS MUST BE AGES
To prove that the days are ages, consider the seventh day. All the other days of creation ended with the phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day." I understand that phrase to mean that each of those days had a distinct conclusion. However, there is no such statement for the seventh day, which must mean that it has not ended. In other words, on the seventh day God ceased creating new life forms, and that day has continued until now because He still "rests" from creating new life."
when it comes to evolution....MICROevolution happened...like there are several differnt species of cat, but a cat cant suddenly go from being a cat to a dog which is known as (MACROevolution)
a monkey will always be a monkey and have the DNA code of a monkey....and a human will always just be a human, and will have the DNA code of a human....one can not suddenly become the other, no matter how many years they on on earth, be it 100 or 4 billion
Intelligent design, as I understand it, depends upon a supernatural force as a catalyst of creation and change. Science, however, is restricted to the natural, and therefore cannot deal with the unobservable, unmeasurable supernatural.
I used to agree with intelligent design-- I'm Christian, and I believe that God created the universe and all life. However, I realized that intelligent design taught that species would rapidly emerge-- just like in creationism.
By now, I've come to believe in theistic evolution, and I believe that the "theistic" part must not be taught in science classes.
I sort of explained it above, but I'll go at it again more clearly:
Creationism is, according to Wikipedia, "the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention." Most of the time, this refers to the Christian God. The Creationism theory differs from religion to religion, but it is generally held that Creationists say the Earth was created in six days by a deliberate act of God.
Intelligent Design, also according to Wikipedia, is "the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Almost all ID proponents state that it is the Christian God doing this directing, but again, it could be anything.
So, let's see if I understand correctly. Creationism isn't the same thing as ID right? I've always been confused about that. I haven't actually heard that term until recently. Could someone please explain the difference between Creation and ID? We're actually debating this in my Journalism class.
Well, i'm a Christian and I believe that there was a Big Bang, but i believe that God started it. I do believe that things can evolve into more interesting things, but I believe that they do because God has choosen it to be that way and because he keeps it in order. This world and human beings didn't come about my acciedent. I'm sorry but, that is unbelieveable.
Kindness is a voice that the deaf can hear. -Blessings
But you can't say ID has no science. It does. Or at least my version does. See, I don't deny any of the current scientific laws. I believe fully in the laws of physics and gravity. I agree that evolution does occur. I merely say that something designed the universe. Is that any more unscientific than saying that the universe was created when a particle smaller than any atom exploded into the infinite universe that we see today? The Big Bang takes just as much faith to believe in as ID or Creationism do. Yet the Big Bang is said to have happened without a doubt, even with no proven data to support it. Why is that?
clpo, I think what you believe in differs from the mainstream definition of "Intelligent Design".
ID states primarily that evolution is directed by a higher being. There's no science behind this, it's untestable, and it's all around a close minded dead-end.
The deist perspective (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're coming from is based off of REASONED conclusions made from scientific evidence. There is a difference between reasoning and science. Science is guided by reason, but science provides proof. Deism is not science, it's reason. There's a world of difference between the two.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
And to answer your question, Intelligent Design is unscientific precisely because it is not science. Science involves experimenting and theories and proven data, ID lacks these (except for theoris, but this definition of theory differs from a scientific theory)
I'm not bothering to go into too much detail because this is not really my field(well, mainly because I'm tired and have homework), and PoliticalStandpoint should be able to argue this..although she is currently indisposed.
Topics 
