Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Opposition to intelligent design (view source)
Revision as of 14:55, May 29, 2008
, 14:55, May 29, 2008because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise [
Opposition to intelligent design is largely motivated by entrenched distaste for its philosophical implications.
Opposition to intelligent design is largely motivated by entrenched distaste for its philosophical implications.
{{quotebox| A living [[organism]] fulfills the definition of a [[machine]] all the way down to the [[molecular]] level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise [[naturally]] by [[random chance]]. [http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm]}}
The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?" Yet the first thing ID opponents always bring up is that [[design]] implies a designer. For atheists, such a designer could only be [[God]]. (Or as [[Richard Dawkins]] said in [[Expelled]], since God almost certainly does not exist, the designer must be an alien from outer space who was himself naturalistically evolved. Obviously, Dawkins brought up that alternative to dismiss it.)
The question that ID poses is not "might there be an intelligent designer?" so much as "is there evidence of intelligent design?" Yet the first thing ID opponents always bring up is that [[design]] implies a designer. For atheists, such a designer could only be [[God]]. (Or as [[Richard Dawkins]] said in [[Expelled]], since God almost certainly does not exist, the designer must be an alien from outer space who was himself naturalistically evolved. Obviously, Dawkins brought up that alternative to dismiss it.)