Sentences with phrase «intelligent design do»

Occasional pockets of intelligent design do not extend to the whole evolutionary mechanism.

After all, their argument for intelligent design does not identify the intelligent designer as the God of any particular religion.

Not exact matches

Scientists who do not dismiss intelligent design as a possibility or who blatantly advocate it through their research are silenced, fired, and ostracized from the academy.

And really, if god is still «designing» us, he's either doing it half - heartedly or he isn't that intelligent.

Noah did not say or think anything about intelligent design.

Your ignorance about the universe does not imply intelligent design.

If they did understand it, they would acknowledge that intelligent design is just a nice idea that confirms their religion - based beliefs about God and the universe.

I, for one, do not subscribe to intelligent design.

Further, if one removes the emotional aspect from whichever belief is held, it must be conceded that Ham did offer an objective and indisputable fact concerning how the public school system has intentionally excluded the intelligent design argument.

It doesn't matter if the topic was intelligent design, abortion or neo-paganism, this does not belong in the workplace.

You don't have to believe in intelligent design to see how there is harassment and discrimination against people for their beliefs.

If humans are the result of so - called «intelligent design» then why do we have too little room on our jawbones to accommodate wisdom teeth (unless this alleged «god» intended our teeth to rot out since we're not supposed to have learned science, and therefore that the presence of bacteria plus acids are a bad environment for tooth enamel), and that so many of us are near - sighted, and that women can have FACIAL HAIR (is that a cruel joke?)

The problem with the «intelligent design» people is that they can't seem to merge the ideas that science and religion don't have to be at odds.

However, the common intelligent design promoter actually believes that it was a supernatural force or godlike being outside of natural processes that did the «designing» and that view is not compatible with science.

The world is not flat, the sun does not orbit the earth, and there is no intelligent design.

My problem with intelligent design is that they don't accept offshoots.

The intelligent design idea has nothing to do with intelligence; it is a belief based on faith.

That doesn't make it wrong but it doesn't make intelligent design wrong either.

Its decision to do so is not on the basis of how the intelligent design community observes science — everyone observes it the same way in real - time.

«Scientist» and «intelligent design» do not even belong in the same sentence.

It really doesn't matter if you or anyone hold a belief about some kind of «intelligent design».

Exactly what evidence do you see that supports intelligent design?

Do you really think they would let us know of any proof they might find about intelligent design.

Intelligent design is basically stating «I do not know how this mechanism could've evolved on its own (X), therefore, intelligent design (Y).

Unfortunately, the minority voice in the communitiy tends to be incredibly vocal and, at times, hostile in the sole attempt to delude the general public into thinking that, if one is a scientist or intelligent, one does not believe in a God or subscribe to intellingent design theories.

... Just the intelligent design folks trying to create controversy when there is none... If he did his job, he would have not been fired...

Christians have voted to put their God's name on everyones money, add «Under God» to the flag salute, force schools to teach intelligent design with absolutely no scientific basis along side the sciences, voted to write their moral laws on the fronts of public courthouses and tax funded buildings, voted to ban certain people from living together, being intimate or raising children because their orientation didn't fit with their bible beliefs.

We do not need to prove a designer to prove intelligent design just as we don't need to disprove a designer to prove evolution.

Just because we observe through studying how beings evolved does not discount intelligent design and vice-versa.

And by the way, for the intelligent design crowd, how, exactly, do you DARE to disbelieve tbe evidence that was «obviously» «crafted» with such care to make the universe look like it's 13 billion years old?

Anyone who really think's intelligent design happened does not need to be employed in scientific pursuits.

Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book and used it as an example of why he does not support the intelligent design movement.

Why do you think the «christians» are trying so blasted hard to ruin school systems here in the states by making them teach «intelligent design» and «abstinence only»?

Just like when I see a car... I don't have to know someone built it to know 100 % that an intelligent being designed it.

I did not say, as I think the intelligent design school seems to affirm, that through scientific methodology, through natural sciences, it is possible to prove design in nature.

He has some theories against intelligent design that I don't agree with.

Not all advocates of intelligent design read the Bible this way, but some clearly do.

Even if intelligent design turned out to be true, that does NOT prove God did it.

Leaving God unnamed does not make their argument any less theological, especially when they claim that the elements of complex design they have observed in nature are present because of the activity of their unnamed intelligent designer.

To train one's children in the infantilism of creationism / I.D., (so called «intelligent design», which... if true... DOES N'T say much about the alleged «intelligence» of the alleged «Designer»!)

How does it exhibit intelligent design?

Do the folks who write intelligent design school textbooks ever ask students to work out which of the creator gods / beings might be the most likely candidate?

To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in creationism / intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo - Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

We don't see that, so life in all its glorious complexity is not an indication of intelligent design.

I only ask that this counsel apply just as much to contemporary advocates of Darwinian theory as it does to proponents of intelligent design.

In contrast, «under intelligent design, humans exist because an intelligent being did «have them in mind.

Russ, I also don't have any issue with an evangelical that comports evolution with their beliefs, its the many that want to deny evolution and insert intelligent design into science classes.

Likewise, Intelligent Design theorists meticulously note the limits on what may be concluded from nature: the structure of living things implies an intelligent agent, but it does not give grounds to identify who that agent is.

He sits around forever, gets bored, makes a species, and then punishes the crap out of them for only doing what comes naturally by his «intelligent design».

Oh, next time I go to the zoo, I'll say HI to some of your relatives that didn't evolve Mr. Catholic Christian believing in «An evolving creation»; where the principles of biological and social evolution are indeed part of the design of an intelligent creator who is NOT all powerful and not «NICE» in the Human context, but «benevolent» at a cosmic scale.