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.

Views: 614

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

With all these replies to replies, I just want to point out that this is OF COURSE directed at Elizabeth Johnson

...And the problem with this reply is that "sin" isn't a "fact." Sin is a theological concept that bears no parallel in reality. Hamartios is the word the Bible uses for sin, which is commonly translated as "missing the mark." The "mark" is set by "god," which is an unproven basis, therefore unusable (or at least untenable).

Indeed, genetic mutation is how we got here. But you can't have the "good thing" part without the "bad thing" part, and you can't have the "bad thing" part and call it "design."
I can't prove the existence of God, but you can't prove that there isn't a God either.
Another thing, you are right, living life without missing the mark is untenable, that is why Jesus came, only He is perfect, only He can intercede between man and a holy God.
Well of course there is, it's all around you, it's in you. Are you seriously suggesting that the body in which you now dwell, the miracle of human thought, the very eyes you use to read these words exist from mere chance? Ludicrous.

We may disagree about how we got here, but to believe that all the diversity of life came from a primordial soup seems as far fetched as you claim my beliefs are.
Mere chance? Those words are clear evidence that you lack even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. Chance is merely one element in evolution, and is certainly not the only contributor. Natural selection is the keystone and you conveniently neglect to mention it.
I would recommend that you pick up one of several books available to acquire an elementary understanding of evolutionary theory if you are going to continue to discuss it. People are less likely to take you seriously if you present a version of evolution that is notnat all what evolutionary theory actually says. After all, would you take someone seriously who was arguing against Christianity who believed that a core tenant of the religion was that Jesus was the king of Judea and ruled until he was killed in battle with the Roman army?

'Why Evolution Is True' by Jerry Coyle is a good starting point.
Your arrogance is off-putting. I would certainly welcome a discussion on the life of Jesus, and why He was much more than a man, thank you very much.

Besides I was discussing that one point in evolution that you find so trivial, not friggin' natural selection which is entirely different.

"Answers in Genesis" would be a good place for you to start if you want to learn what the other side thinks of your multifaceted evolutionary mumbo jumbo.
Why the heck not , nothin' better to do at the moment any way.

Hi Elizabeth - Here is a link to the teaching of AIG. I call it child abuse. What do you call it?

Your beliefs are as unsubstantiated as mine

I am not the one professing a believe. You are. The onus of proof is on you. I just don't believe it becasue their is no evidence.


Once again, I refer to the basic lack of understanding of core points.  Here is a good followup point for anyone once they've finished the "Answers in Genesis" site.


Dave is trying to help you understand the basics.  Be offended if you choose, but that's not arrogance.  Calling it so doesn't make it so. (again, Mere Assertion fallacy)


And finally, most of us (correct me if I'm wrong, fellow posters) were ardent Christians for some time before embracing reason.  So, we know the arguments, because we used them.  We just kept learning. :-)


That's a good link Dan - thanks.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service