Sample about Intelligent Design

Many scholars in the scientific establishment do not accept Intelligent Design as a tested scientific theory.

They do not even acknowledge it as one theory which can at least be presented as one of the many schools of thoughts that educators should offer students in class discussions. They see it as a cunningly devised and a marketed endeavor to initiate religious and Christian thinking to students.In 1987, Creationism was banned by the U. S. Supreme Court because it teaches that God was the Creator who created the world and the whole creation about 6,000 years ago; it was successfully prohibited in public schools on the grounds of the church’s separation from the state.

But why is it not accepted as one of the theories which students can at least compare with other theories? Is it not only fair as people who promote free thinking among our people to provide all line of thinking for the students to weigh and choose which theory or teaching is more scientifically credible?The great scientist da Vinci made many discoveries which included anatomy of the human body as well as several animals. His explorations led to a new level of understanding of all the systems in the body through dissection and made assertions that the similarities between branching blood vessels and tree branches were similar and where fundamentally the same. One of this most useful investigation had to do with geology. He believed in a spirit of microcosm and macrosm that he felt unified the university.

He really believe that there popular beliefs in regards to fossils found in the water were not biblical relics but support for what scientists call today, evolution. Da Vinci believed that the earth was much older then the dating of the earth via the bible. He understood that fossils were examples of organisms that have lived in the passed and could be treated like a textbook about the history of animals. In addition he studied sedimentary rocks and soil deposits to better understand how fossils could be dated.He was also one of the first scientists to explore the idea of tectonics and the movement of the earth. It was through these discoveries that he developed a general idea of evolution.

NOMA does not believe in evolution. NOMA believes that a higher power, God, is responsible for the way each animal looks, acts, and lives. Natural history for NOMA does not support evolution but is used to support the idea that God made each creature separately. NOMA believes the science and religion are completely separate and having nothing to do with each other.The reaction of many critics of Intelligent Design to President Bush’s comment on the issue is far-fetched.

To oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design among schools, alongside the theory of evolution is not only unfair but unhealthy to children and the American population in general, in that it shuts people’s mind to the real and only alternative to the theory of evolution.With Intelligent Design included in the curriculum of our schools, students will now have a broader scope of learning through which they can better assess which scientific theory is truly science, i. . scientific in its approach in studying the origin of human species Evolution as Religion. n evolutionist by the name of Michael Ruse admitted that Evolution is more than a theory.

Ruse said that “evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. ” It is, he said, propagated as an alternative to Christianity with its “meaning and morality. ” Ruse admitted that Creationists (those who advocate Intelligent Design) are absolutely right when they point to Evolution as religion. Evolution bears with it the marks of a religion.

First, it teaches where man came from and where we are heading (evolution), second, it teaches us what to do as we go along the way. Ruse is right. If Christianity is religious and Evolution is propagated as an alternative/substitute to Christianity, then Evolution also is religious. The debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design is not a debate between science and religion but a clash and competition between one religion and science – materialistic science – and another religion and science – creation scienceThe Earth is not a stable environment. It is constantly moving and changing.

The Earth changes through the two specific mechanisms called fusion and fission. Fusion is the bringing together of two things. Many scientists believe that fusion the mechanism by which new elements were created. Fission is the splitting of two things. This is the mechanism by which volcanoes and plate tectonics are based on it.

The growth and movement of the earth is based on the bringing together and splitting apart of many different types of natural resources.Germs and ribosomes are both seen as single celled organisms which have their own DNA, replication processes, and are considered alive. These single cell organisms are called prokaryotes. Prokaryotes differ from eukaryotes because eukaryotes are much more complex and have many more cells. Scientists believe that multicellular organisms evolved from germs and ribosomes.

They involved by combining into one cell. The early 1950's saw an avalanche of discoveries about the world within the cells of animals and plants.A whole new vocabulary had to be developed for such unfamiliar structures as lysosomes, mitochondria, ribosomes, the rough endoplasmic reticulum, the smooth endoplasmic reticulum, microfilaments, microtubules, the plasma membrane, and others. At first these sounded exotic and rather forbidding, but by now each organelle has emerged with a personality of its own, and scientists speak of them not only with assurance but even, at times, with affection or humor.

Mendel was a scientists that studied basic genetics through the breeding of pee plants.He was the first scientist to understand and explain genetic traits which are dominant and recessive. In addition he common for organisms to survive. They are the fittest for survival and have the ability to survive and reproduce. Coined the phrases of phenotype and pedigree. He realized that dominant traits are those which are best for survival.

The life and work of 19th-century friar Gregor Mendel, a former high school teacher whose experiments were ignored by the scientific community for decades, is the subject of an exhibition now touring the country.For eight years, Mendel grew generation after generation of pea plants and carefully observed the results. Over the course of these experiments, he grew an estimated 28,000 plants and counted some 300,000 peas. In 1865, he reported the results of plant hybridizing experiments and laid out the basic laws of inheritance--offering a tentative, but insightful, sketch of how physical traits are passed from one generation to the next. This groundbreaking work was ignored until the turn of the century, when it was rediscovered and confirmed by other researchers.

Since then, Mendel has come to be recognized as the "father of modern genetics," although the history of how he accomplished that remains relatively unknown today. The approximately 100-artifact exhibition traces the rise of genetics through its major milestones--from the discovery of chromosomes to the famous DNA model of James Watson and Francis Crick. While very few of Menders papers or personal possessions were kept, his botanical specimens, scientific instruments, photographs, correspondence, original manuscripts, journal, books, and gardening tools are on display.Life-size photo murals of the Abbey library where Mendel studied, the Columbia University Fly Room where Thomas H. Morgan investigated the genetics of fruit flies in the early 1900s, and a modern DNA lab illustrate the changes in the scientific environment over the last 150 years. Gould believes that natural selection is the very first stage of evolution and is very simple.

He believes that it accounts for many of the minor changes seen between organisms.Gould's arguments are powerful, perhaps even more so because of his considerable rhetorical sophistication. But in spite of all his dedication to contingency and its attendant questioning of progress and predictability, Gould equivocates often enough to cast doubt upon the depth of his revolutionary convictions. If on the one hand he maintains that contingency involves the lottery of decimation, on the other he tells us that "we do not know for sure that the Burgess decimation was a lottery".At times he insists that altering any antecedent event, no matter how supposedly insignificant, diverts the course of history; at other times he suggests that such antecedents must be significant ones: "any major change in any step of the sequence would have altered the final result".

He will claim that the emergence of human intelligence was a contingent fact of evolution, but then submit "that at some point in the story of human evolution, circumstances conspired to encourage mentality at our modern level".But it does not have any real influence or explanation of evolution, progress, or advancement of a species. Attenborough believes that evolution is the best way currently to explain why we are who we are today. The argument of Diamond and Klein would be more convincing if we had a really plentiful fossil record of our ancestors throughout our history, so that we could measure just how much change actually took place during various forty-thousand- year periods in the more distant past. But we do not--the gaps in the record are often hundreds of thousands or even millions of years long.

And as they themselves admit, some physical change has even taken. Ask evolutionists these questions: “Where did space for the universe come from? ” “Where did the initial material come from? ” “What sparked the explosion/Big Bang? ” These questions are simply honest-to-goodness questions that will destroy the Big Bang theory. Because if there’s nothing to explode, there would be no explosion. There must be, first of all, something there or material to explode if there would be an explosion.