Intelligent Design Does Not Replace Creationism

The intelligent design movement has gained inroads into the scientific community, thereby creating a lot of debate. Skeptics of this movement have called it “watered down creationism” while others have stated; “ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”  Stephen Meyers ID proponent.

Intelligent Design, goes by two basic principles; “irreducibly complexity” and “specified complexity” none of which originated from the Bible. Irreducibly complexity explains in a scientific way what evolution cannot do such as there can be no new information created unless there is an intelligent designer.  Also if you take away one or more parts, the function stops working. Thus, evolution couldn’t happen.

As far as specified complexity, it’s basically an organization of certain finely tuned elements such as language, chemical motors, functions which has to execute precisely it’s objectives. All elements makes an intelligent designer delectable.

Intelligent design advocates common ancestry and an old earth which is in agreement with evolution. The movement doesn’t go as far as proposing who or what the designer is. It’s beyond science they say so they labeled it as an intelligent agent or agents. Which leads a person that the designer could be supernatural.

In contrast proponents of evolution claim, design is just an “illusion” of what we see, but it’s really natural processes at work. Natural section is the unthinking process which decides by random chance which advantage a created non-living object or living object should have.

“Chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no being…Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no `isness.’ Chance has no isness.

I was technically incorrect even to say that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not. What are the chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance to do something than nothing has to do something”  RC Sproul

Creationism on the other hand, uses the Bible and identifies the intelligent designer or creator as being God not some “agent” as the ID movement would like to call it. It uses Biblical proposals and then science to confirm these proposals. For example, the natural world is subject to natural law which cannot be broken nor modified in any way.

Some of these consist of the Law of Biogenesis where it states life comes from life after it’s own kind. As we see in nature, animals being born after their own kind. Then there is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It’s defined as an energy mass which cannot be created out of nothing (E=mc2), and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.

Intelligent design can be complimentary at times in it’s proposals to help confirm what the Bible states on who the Creator is and reveals what evolution is not able to accomplish in the natural world, but in no way does it replace creationism.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Intelligent Design Does Not Replace Creationism

  1. “Irreducibly complexity explains in a scientific way what evolution cannot do such as there can be no new information created unless there is an intelligent designer.”

    Actually mutations can create new information. It is well-documented.

  2. Well when it comes to this particular argument, DNA needs protein to function properly, and protein needs DNA information for proper sequencing. Since both are relied upon each other for survival, it’s what you call “irreducibly complex.” In other words, evolution could not start creating information in the beginning stages and if information can’t be created from the beginning and used for replication, it sure can’t create it later on.

    As far as mutations, they can only happen in a existing gene. Normally a replication error occurs which produces a mutation. These type of errors are generally very rare and a series of related mutations is extremely rare. Six to eight related mutations is basically impossible odds. Mutations are regressive rather than progressive.

    I believe I heard of the milk debate back a few months ago, perhaps longer, where an child can digest milk to their teens, but as they get older, they are not able to. As I stated before, evolution proposes progressive changes, but that’s an observation of a regressive change which would be more in line with the creationist model.

    The medical industry spends billions of dollars fighting mutations which is another indication of mutations being regressive.

  3. “The medical industry spends billions of dollars fighting mutations which is another indication of mutations being regressive.”

    How is that an indication of mutations being regressive?

    Also, I see you completely ignored my point that mutations can and do create new information. You just continue spouting that they can’t even thought it’s been shown many times that they can, and do. Go do some research. I don’t make these things up.

  4. Copied information (which is where mutations come from when a cell doesn’t replicate properly) is not the same as a process that produces new information from scratch. This is what I was referring to as far as “irreducible complexity” is concerned.

    Just to clarify a bit, I inserted into my response the milk story and noticed the lack of understanding as you have more of a focus of undermining. In answer to your question concerning the medical field regressive mutations are cancer and other diseases, and even more recently they are studying a gene mutation in which scientist believes causes blindness.

    As far as the milk story, is where a mutation allowed a child to digest milk while adults have a problem with it. So what do you think regressed and what do you think I implied about being able to digest milk as a child?

    Not all mutations are “regressive” meaning harmful. Many are neutral, and harmful, but a few are beneficial as pointed out before, but not to the point where it can change a species into a different one. I think this is where you believe “new information” leads to.

    I think you should take the bias out of your reading and actually try to understand what a person is writing. Trying is one thing, people make mistakes, but in your case I noticed it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s