Is Intelligent Design Really Intelligent? A paper I had to do for english

I was given the opportunity to do a paper in my English class on Intelligent Design. I only had 2 1/2 hours to write it and this is what I came up with. I had very limited use of the internet and it was NOT a research paper. The professor is (I think) Christian and knows that I am an Atheist. She was very excited to read my paper. I am posting it here because I would like feed back on the arguments I presented. I told her without proper research my ideas might have a few holes in them and she understood completely, again this was for an English paper.

Any help on the ideas I presented would be greatly appreciated :) I hope this is in the right forum.....

Is Intelligent Design Really Intelligent?

Is life on earth the result of intelligent design or did it all happen by chance? Intelligent design (or ID) is the theory that a superior being put the universe into motion. The majority of people who believe in intelligent design also believe it goes further than that, that God has a hand in our every day life. A smaller percentage believe that we are here due to evolution, that everything happened by chance. From my point of view Chance seems more logical. The ideology of Intelligent design does not justify birth defects; it can not be proven in the science lab; and is not an adequate argument for “gaps” in science.

A disturbing problem with the theory of Intelligent design is the overwhelming amount of birth defects, both structural and functional/developmental. Birth defects are caused by defects in our genes as well as environmental hazards. Intelligent design, with the accompanying belief in God, is that humans should be perfect. We were made by God in his image. Perfect. If that were true then our genetic code would not mutate. Hence there would be no birth defects and/or genetic mutations/mishaps. This however is not the case. The Center for Disease Control states that 120,000 babies in the United States are born with birth defects each year. If you look at this situation through the scope of evolution you will see that mutations in genetic code fit very well into the science of evolution.

The way our species has evolved over time has brought us to become a science dependant race. Everything from understanding our place in the solar system, to the atoms and molecules that make up our bodies, to the types of foods we can safely ingest, we got from scientifically testing theories, which is the reason we have the answers to those questions. Intelligent design is not a probable or acceptable theory due to lack of being able to test it which is why the scientific community does not recognize it.

There are some who view science as a great tool of the human race, however they can not let go of the emotion that accompanies Intelligent Design. They see the gaps in science as unexplainable and therefore attribute these unexplainable instances to ID. This is called using the God of Gaps rationalization. Using this argument is not conducive to science because everyday science is understanding more and more about the universe and the world in which we live. At one point in time science thought the earth was flat, but due to exploration, we came to the conclusion that the earth was in fact round. This is the way that science works.

Intelligent design, as fascinating as it might seem to some, is not a theory of scientific measures at this point in time. It simply plays on the emotions, as opposed to the intellect, of humans. So in the words of Christopher Hitchens I leave you with this “Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.", and Intelligent Design does not give exceptional evidence.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Johnson on February 22, 2011 at 7:06pm

I truly didn't mean to offend it's just I get frustrated by the arrogance that emanates from people like you who tend to read themselves into oblivion and then berate and belittle others who don't share the same worldview. I'm not saying that you necessarily, it tend to become a running theme in the discussion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Sanders on February 22, 2011 at 7:26pm

YOU berated. YOU belittled.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Johnson on February 22, 2011 at 7:32pm

Since when is having a frank discussion berating a belittling any one. You are more sensitive than I gave you credit for. So many times people try to stop the Christian from engaging in meaningful debate by calling into question their ability to think rationally. That's what I felt like. I want to stand up for myself and give as good as I get. Double standard?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Sanders on February 23, 2011 at 2:19pm

You don't get to be a jerk (i.e. choosing an atheist-oriented website to evangelize for Christianity) and then be angry that someone called you on it. That is, in fact, a double standard.

No one is questioning your ability to think rationally. We question why you choose not to.

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 23, 2011 at 3:17pm

You are more than welcome to try and defend your views, Elizabeth. However, you will be called upon to provide support for your statements. Many of us are quite knowledgable about theology (some of us were even preachers before we became atheists) and most of us have had some experience with dealing with logical fallacies. Things like circular reasoning, begging the question, arguments from ignorance or arguments from emotion, and false dichotomies will not be accepted as evidence because they are logically flawed.

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 22, 2011 at 7:00pm

Actually, I have plenty of hope, Elizabeth. I have hope in the future of humanity (even if some of the ignorance, hatred and cruelty I see in the world occasionally makes it seem a forlorn hope). I have hope that my family and friends will live long, happy lives. And I have hope that maybe someday we'll find a way to extend human lifespans to the point where no one has to die before they are ready to.

Sure, I don't have hope for a second life after this one, but why would I need it? An afterlife is certainly not needed to hope for our lives to improve.

Yea, the majority of the people on this planet believe in a deity of some kind or other. The popularity of a belief does not make it true, nor does the comfort offered. A lie may be comforting, but it is still a lie.

You speak of telling a mother her child is gone forever just to feel smart. I do not know of any atheist who would do such a thing. I can certainly bring to mind numerous Christians who would tell a grieving mother that their dead child is being tortured for eternity for not believing in the correct god, though. Horrible people, but true to the teachings of their religion.

I feel sorry for you that you think that this life, the only life that we have, glorious and wonderful in its brief flourishing, is meaningless without a belief in something beyond this life. I look forward to time with friends, to learning new things every day, to basking in the wondrous and awe-inspiring beauty that is our universe. To look at distant galaxies and revel in the delicate dance of stars, themselves raging fusion furnaces.

No, there is a surfeit of beauty, hope and wonder in my life, Elizabeth. I am sorry that you find your life so meaningless and worthless that you need external justification to validate your existence.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Johnson on February 22, 2011 at 7:03pm

Glad you weren't born a child prostitute on the streets of Mumbai aren't you.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 22, 2011 at 8:19pm

Very much so. The luck of the draw worked in my favor.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Johnson on February 22, 2011 at 7:09pm

As a Christian, I don't believe children go to hell, you really need to do some research before passing judgement.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Johnson on February 22, 2011 at 7:22pm

Glad to know it. Good thing limbo was just something greedy " men of the cloth" came up with just to bilk more money from ignorant peasants who weren't allowed to learn the Bible for themselves. They might have realized they were being duped a few hundred years before now.
Isn't it grand that there are no depths we humans won't sink too all the while using religion as a cloak! Just proves my point in the need for a redeemer to save us from ourselves.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Sanders on February 22, 2011 at 7:23pm

LOL. "It. Still. Hurts. Sir."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Sanders on February 22, 2011 at 7:21pm

Plenty of Christians do (they're called Catholics - in the Catechism, unbaptized children at death are "commited to the grace of the lord," and since that same grace sends unrepentant adults to hell, no reason to think that God is two-faced). And as you've mentioned majorities before, there are WAY more Catholics than Protestants. That research street is two-way.