Difference between revisions of "Intelligent Design"

From Imperial Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Intelligent Design''' (aka [[Creationism]] in a clown suit.<ref>[http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Phrases.xhtml Fundie Phrase Dictionary]</ref>) claims to be a scientific alternative to [[Evolution]] for explaining how life came be on Earth. In reality, it is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to evade separation of church and state laws in the [[United States]] after [[Creationism]] was ruled a violation of them.  Several creationist books suddenly changed their terminology after this ruling.  "Creation" changed to "ID", "God" changed to "intelligent cause/agent", etc.
'''Intelligent Design''' (aka "incompetent design" aka [[Creationism]] in a clown suit<ref>[http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Phrases.xhtml Fundie Phrase Dictionary]</ref>) claims to be a scientific alternative to [[Evolution]] for explaining how life came be on Earth. In reality, it is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to evade separation of church and state laws in the [[United States]] after [[Creationism]] was ruled a violation of them.  Several creationist books suddenly changed their terminology after this ruling.  "Creation" changed to "ID", "God" changed to "intelligent cause/agent", etc.


== Content ==
== Content ==

Revision as of 19:02, 19 November 2008

Intelligent Design (aka "incompetent design" aka Creationism in a clown suit[1]) claims to be a scientific alternative to Evolution for explaining how life came be on Earth. In reality, it is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to evade separation of church and state laws in the United States after Creationism was ruled a violation of them. Several creationist books suddenly changed their terminology after this ruling. "Creation" changed to "ID", "God" changed to "intelligent cause/agent", etc.

Content

ID proposes that life is too complex to have evolved naturally. Therefore some higher power must have intervened to specifically create those features, described as "irreducibly complex". In other words, it is a colossal appeal to ignorance fallacy.

The primary argument is that taking the structure apart causes it to not function. However, this claim is misleading at best. As has been proven, the components of the structure don't perform that particular function but they do often perform other functions.

References