|
Originally Posted by jibber
ok i'm bored, so i'm just going to point out a few flaws with the intelligent design theory, or as we've been calling it, creationism.
The basics of design of any form created to perform a certain function is the same, the simpler the better. Paley's (who wrote extensive documents on the theory of intelligent design) theoretical argument compares a watch to living beings. He argues that if you found a watch lying in the forest, you wouldn't assume that it had simply come into being on its own. Being that it is of complex (relatively speaking) design, and can conveniently tell time, one would assume that a watchmaker had created it. He relates this to the theory of intelligent design by speculating that as living beings are complex in design, and have been created to serve a specific purpose (to serve God), the it follows that we were created by a higher being as well. Here's the problem with that. As stated before, any engineer, designer, or basically anyone who knows about the construction of a form to serve a specific purpose will tell you that the most perfect designs are the most simple, with no unnecessary functions. Now, since this is not true for living beings (on the grounds that there are many functions within our bodies that serve no usefull purpose), the theory of intelligent design doesn't meet the definition of Godhood, that being an entirely intelligent power. Let's look at birds for example. Many species have hollow bones in the legs to allow for less weight and an all around easier flight. This in iself seems to be almost an argument for intelligent design, were it not for the fact that this characteristic is also present in emus, a bird that doesn't have the capability of flying. If we were created by an all powerfull, Godlike figure, it doesn't stand to reason that that power would incorporate elements of wasteful design. Of course, Paley's other theory that our distinct purpose is to serve God is so obviously a mere opinion that I'm not even going to touch on that. Just another add on, it's been scientifically proven that chimpanzees have 99% identical DNA to that of human beings, so it stands to reason that we did have chimpanzee ancestors at one point. As well, gorilla's have been found with 89% identical DNA, and even cows simply by being a mamal have 50% identical DNA of that of human beings.
Having said all that, we simply can't assume that there is only two possible answers. By saying that intelligent design isn't a valid theory, it doesn't by any means automatically prove the validity of evolution. Of course there are holes in the logic of the theory of evolution, but that by no means is definitive proof that we were created by a higher being. It must be simply assumed that there is an alternative answer, because obviously we came into being in some way, just not by how the theory of intelligent design has been laid out or how darwin lays out his theory of evolution.
|
Threaded Mode