Changes

[[Image:Darwin-intelligent-design-evolution.jpg|right]]

[[Image:Darwin-intelligent-design-evolution.jpg|right]]

The '''intelligent Design''' (ID) argument is a critique of the theory of [[evolution through natural selection]] on the basis that life and other aspects of the physical universe are too complex to have come about through natural processes alone. In particular, the [[cell]] is too intricate to have come into being without having been designed (see [[irreducible complexity]]). Thus various features of the universe and of living things are best explained by a designer and not by undirected processes. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571</ref><ref>http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm</ref>

The '''intelligent Design''' (ID) argument is a critique of the theory of [[evolution through natural selection]] on the basis that life and other aspects of the physical universe are too complex to have come about through natural processes alone. Thus various features of the universe and of living things are best explained by a designer and not by undirected processes. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571</ref><ref>http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm</ref>

ID opponents typically insist that natural processes alone are sufficient to account for biological evolution, but the [[irreducible complexity]] of cellular structures such as the [[flagellum]] are too intricate to have come about through the agency of random natural causes. Indeed, [[natural selection]] itself would nip any changes in the bud before they could accumulate to create anything so complex as a "[[molecular machine]]".  

Although [[evolutionists]] typically insist that natural processes alone are sufficient to account for biological evolution, the [[irreducible complexity]] of cellular structures such as the [[flagellum]] are too intricate to have come about through the agency of random natural causes. Indeed, [[natural selection]] itself would nip any changes in the bud before they could accumulate to create anything so complex as a "[[molecular machine]]".  

Departing from their self-imposed realm of [[physical science]], some evolutionists have raised theological objections to intelligent design. One of the most common arguments is an atheistic one; that if an [[Intelligent Designer]] created life in all its forms, such a designer would also have to have a creator, leading to an [[infinite regress]]. (See [[Arguments for atheism]].)

Departing from their self-imposed realm of [[physical science]], some evolutionists have raised theological objections to intelligent design. One of the most common arguments is an atheistic one; that if an [[Intelligent Designer]] created life in all its forms, such a designer would also have to have a creator, leading to an [[infinite regress]]. (See [[Arguments for atheism]].)