Sciethics: Who is the Designer? Is there even a name?

Sciethics: Who is the Designer? Is there even a name?: "Intelligent Design has always been a controversial subject, from the household up to the world’s powers. Some say, however, that the ..."

Is Intelligent Design real science?

Is Intelligent Design real science?
To answer this question, first of all, we need to understand the definition of Science. What is Science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." Compare the definition of science to the concept of Intelligent design, we may have the answer for the question.
Appearing in "Judgement Day: Intelligent design on trial", Dr. Behe is a professor in the department of biological science at Lehigh university Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; he is best known as the author of "Darwin's black box", a senior fellow of the idea of Intelligent Design. He define the factor of science about Intelligent design as "observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature" and "logical inference". The two major differences between these two definitions are : Possibility of getting tested and concernation of topic. A topic that could be considered science must be tested by a scientific method. According to Dr. Hebe, Intelligent design have never been tested and could not be tested. This factor gives Dr. Hebe a big minus point. Concernation, a topic that could be considered science must be concerned with the physical world, "Intelligent Design" is based on the thinking of the creation of all living forms designed by an unknown "Designer", " Creator", or "Greater Being". This has nothing to do with the physical world.
In conclusion, the theory is not tested and not close to reality and physical world, but that does not mean the theory is not true, which is absolutely true; it can not be proved but it may still exists. But the question here is about is it possible to consider " Intelligent Design" science, the answer is no, at least, temporarily, it is not real science yet.

Does the big bang theory associate with evolution? or are they separate theories?

Well when I first came up with the question I thought "well the Big Bang Theory is about the explosion, and the expansion of the universe until today, and continuation. Whereas the evolution theory is about natural selection: nature is selecting organisms that have the best adaptations to the environment; and these will be the organisms that will reproduce and pass on their genes to their future generations". But I thought about it more, I realized that the two theories do associate with another in a indirect way. If Big Bang never happened there wouldn't be planets with organisms in them. Also I believe that evolution didn't start on this planet. I believe that organisms arrived here on the planet billions years ago on meteorites. That meteorites may have transferred these organism through space. Beyond that I think that big bang created chemicals needed for organisms such as carbon. I believe that evolution started with the big bang, and even though it may be two different theories, and two different concepts, they are related.

A Theory?

Is Darwinian evolution a theory or a theorem?
A: it is a theory because a theorem is proven. Evolution has not been proven and therefore is a theory. An example of a theorem would be Pythagoreans’ theorem, which has been proven a2 + b2 = c2. Although the main point against the Darwinians at the school was that it was a theory and so was the Intelligent designers, putting them in the same category. But like the movie showed, the intelligent design was creationism with a new name. They are both theory’s, neither one of them had been proven.

Who is the Designer? Is there even a name?

Intelligent Design has always been a controversial subject, from the household up to the world’s powers. Some say, however, that the ‘Intelligent Designer’ is just another name for God, and that the two names are interchangeable. Who is this Designer anyways?

She doesn’t have an actual name or term assigned to Her. When Intelligent Design is described, it sounds an awful lot like God. There isn’t a solid base for saying who the designer is. Nobody has a reasonable explanation. Scientifically, this theory is nonsense. It just isn’t possible to have a mortal or supernatural being deciding that dogs don’t meow, or that cows don’t produce lemonade. The theory is that there are some things in nature that are far too advanced to be produced through evolution. This then means that it had to have been developed by someone (or something) more intelligent. The scientific community rejects theories that include the supernatural in favour of the hard facts of Darwinism. The textbook Of Pandas and People was the first published text that included Intelligent Design. This book created much conflict in the town of Dover and elsewhere in the US. The text concentrates on the teaching of Intelligent Design but gives equal weight to Creationism.

After a heated debate, an extensive textbook being published, etc, nobody has come up with even a proper name for the Intelligent Designer. Creationism has God, and Darwinism has Darwin. Who is this ‘supernatural being’ anyways? Nobody knows, and nobody really has a good explanation how a supernatural being could create something as vast and advanced as our beloved earth. Who is this ‘Intelligent Designer?’ Where did she come from? What’s the story behind it? Those are the big, fundamental questions that arise when discussing this theory. Why don’t we have answers then? I feel that for something to be accepted by so many people, it should have a solid backing with hard facts and explanation. Darwinism is explained with the hard facts of the finches. There is no arguing about how different birds have different beaks for different food types. We need information like this that will explain who the Intelligent Designer is. She seems to be hiding in the shadows, without a spotlight on Her to bring a name and hard facts to light.

Traditional science has hard facts, names, and isn’t directly corresponded with God and Creationism. Darwinism is accepted throughout the scientific community. Who is this Intelligent Designer? Why doesn’t anybody have an explanation for this question?

I’ll stick with my Darwinism

Intelligent design more a religion than the Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design is the assertion for the evolution of the human race and the world by a higher force creating the earth and everything on it. This theory has not a lot of evidence, like any religion doesn’t have a lot of evidence, which makes it hard to teach in school, especially, when there are different religions, which don’t share the believe in a higher force like Buddhism. The Darwinian evolution talks about how the animals and human evolved from bacteria and to the the animals and human, which brings the question up: “How did the bacteria develop?”.

The intelligent design is more considered a religion than the Darwinian evolution, because the Darwinian evolution has a lot more scientific proofs than intelligent design does.
The Darwinian evolution is not fully true and still has some missing parts, we couldn’t proof yet. This fact makes it way harder to entirely exclude Intelligent design. Especially the question “How did the bacteria develop?” makes it easier to call it into a question. It was decided by judge not to teach intelligent design in school, even though there are a lot of unanswered questions in the Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design should be taught in school, because if somebody believes in Intelligent design he should get the possibility to be educated in this subject and if you don’t believe in it you should get the possibility to be educated in the Darwinian evolution. So it should be made possible to choose between both if the inquiry of both is big enough.

Who is the "designer"?

Intelligent design has been claimed as either religious or non-religious, however no one supporting creationism has been able to prove any of the ideas they've come up with with any evidence that supports it. On the religious side of things, certain people in support of the intelligent design movement have expressed that they consider the Abrahamic God "Elohim" as a creator god to be the creator of the universe, and they deny that it is God himself. This is what the Raelians believe, which could also be considered as a non-religious view on creationism, depending on whether or not you consider Atheism to be a religion or not. The Raelians are Atheists that believe the world was created by humanoid extraterrestrials called Elohim, which was the word used for God in ancient writings. On a slightly different hand, Dembski believes that it can be any god (or gods) that have created the universe. Many also believe that it is a Christian God over any other Gods of other religions. However, Dembski also said that the intelligent designers could be space aliens, which is also believed by Raelians. They believe that aliens have created the earth from outer space. One more belief is that the intelligent designer is some sort of time traveling cell biologist, and this was proposed by Behe. None of these ideas have any scientific proof and hardly any other proof at all. If anything, they may even cause people to support the contrary, considering how irrational they are. Behe fails to provide any biochemical evidence for his statement that the world was created by so-called "time travelling biologists", and because there is significant scientific proof for evolution and none for creationism, the creationists are at a loss with proving their claims to be correct. God has also been failed to be proven, because it is a belief based on faith rather than science. The last question I wonder when I think about the people that believe in intelligent design, is who do they think created God, or these “time travelling cell biologists”, or “Elohim”? Then who created whatever created them? The questions never end. I personally think it’s simpler to just stick with science.

Religion in Science class?

Many people argue whether or not the theory of Intelligent Design is a religion, and whether it should be integrated into science classes, along with the popular theory of Darwinism.

First, lets discuss the basis of Intelligent Design being either a scientific theory or a religion, worded to convince the minds of the public that it is a so-called theory. In this argument a very popular question arises- who is the intelligent designer? Some will argue it is God, or that it is a futuristic designer (where did he come from!?), or even perhaps a time traveling alien from Mars. A scientific theory has scientific evidence- not just physical evidence, but scientific. Evidence is there to support the theory at hand. Although scientific evidence has no universal definition, it is assumed that it is applicable to the subject. Scientific evidence has more leverage than physical evidence in any case. Discovering scientific evidence usually means the theory it is supporting is correct, thus making it an inductive argument. The theory of Evolution has many new-age technologies to back it up (Genetics, DNA coding, ect). However, unlike the theory of Evolution, Intelligent Design relies solely on physical identification (such as organisms seeming, or looking "too complex" for evolution to have occurred) to back it up; thus making Intelligent Design seem more like an overnight idea than a theory studied for hundreds of years.


So why should we, or shouldn't we, have it taught in science classes? 

One of the key fundamentals of today's technology, today's medicine, and today's biology, is the theory of evolution. Why should we disregard that and introduce a new "scientific" theory with no evidence? Without the theory of evolution, we wouldn't be able to produce new vaccines, or antibiotics, as we would lack the study of how our genes and cells have changed overtime, and our reactions to certain disease. However, if we start introducing Intelligent Design, we would be preaching God in our science classroom. Everyone has a right to their own religion and system of beliefs, but also the right to education and knowledge; however, there is a difference between forcing religion on someone and teaching science in class.

Why is intelligent design considered more of a religion, and evolution isn't?

Intelligent design is the theory of an "intelligent agent" that created the species that live in earth. The argument is whether or not this is to be taught in schools along with evolution. Intelligent design doesn't have as much evidence as evolution; the judge claimed the theory of intelligent design didn't have enough support to identify this theory to be taught in class. Intelligent design speaks of how we were created, and evolution talks of how we evolved from bacteria that was created. But how was this bacteria created? Does the theory evolution associate with the "Big Bang Theory".

The argument is still whether or not this is to be taught in class, or both? It seems intelligent design speaks of the creation of the species on Earth, and evolution talks of the development. The Big Bang is part of science, and so is evolution but they are not closely associated. They say the Big Bang has gaps. This means that the theory is not 100% true, and neither evolution, intelligent design, or the Big bang have been confirmed. The big bang is more closely related to intelligent design than evolution is to intelligent design. This saying that the big bang and intelligent design focus on how we were created. There is some estimates of the big bang. An example would be the galaxies moving apart, which they claim is from the big bang. But if they make assumptions of how it looks like the big bang was formed this way, then the estimate of the "propeller" on the flagellum and how it looks like it was designed could support intelligent design as much as the big bang evidence can. Then why is the big bang allowed in schools and intelligent design isn't? This is because the big bang has more evidence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. The big bang is something many people are not familiar about, and the concept of it being associated with evolution is incorrect. They are both science, but different areas of science. The argument between evolution and science is whether enough how many facts there were in the argument, the judge declined intelligent design because of little support behind the theory, and evolution seemed to have much more support. The judge decided for intelligent design to not be taught in school.

Intelligent design should not be taught in schools, because there is not enough support for it to be proven to be a solid theory. What is the difference between a theory and a theorem? A theory (dictionary.com): a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. A theorem: A proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system. The theory of evolution is not a theorem., they say there are gaps in their hypothesis, and the theory of intelligent design is not proven either. So neither evolution or intelligent design are 100% proven theorems, but evolution is taught because of more evidence found upon its theory.

Why is intelligent design considered more of a religion and evolution is not?

Intelligent Design is considered more of a religion then evolution for several reasons. It is considered more of a religion because it shares many of the same qualities as many religions. The idea of a 'intelligent designer' can easily be compared to the idea of a 'god' creating everything we know today. This is very much like many religions today. Intelligent Design also does not have the same support or evidence that Evolution has. Evolution has had many different scientists research the idea, however no real hard evidence has been given to support the idea of intelligent design. Most of the evidence that has been given to support intelligent design has been turned down and proven wrong by scientists who believe in evolution and who are able to proof the point of intelligent design to be wrong or why it could also work for Evolution. The idea of false dilemma is relevant to the situation for one main reason: if evolution is false, does that mean that the theory of intelligent design is correct? No, this does not mean that the theory of intelligent design is correct. There are many other theories but they are not considered. The theory of intelligent design is not a positive argument or proof, rather it is just an alternative if evolution is false. This is wrong because there are many other theories that should also be considered but are not, rather they are just pushed aside and the theory of intelligent design is made correct if evolution is proven false.

Who is the Intelligent Designer?

Intelligent design is theory that states that the world was created by a certain designer, and proposes that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."(Wikipedia) Many people who believe in intelligent design say that it's not at all religious, and that the intelligent designer is not God. It is hard to believe in something like that when there is no evidence to prove that an intelligent designer exists, or ever existed. Intelligent Design is even defined as a type of creationism. There are some though, that believe that aliens created the earth and they call themselves Raelians. They are atheist, and believe in Intelligent design. Once again there has been very little evidence, and a man name Claude Vorilhon says that he was approached by an alien in 1973. He has since been re-named Rael, and is the founder of the Raelian religion. Although he has many followers, he also has many ex-raelians who disagree with his theory. (http://raelian.com/en/).The religious side of Intelligent design would be creationism. Creationism believes that a super being created the world and universe. It is a religious theory. To prove that there is an intelligent designer, there needs to be inductive evidence (evidence that supports a strong argument which would state that that argument is probably true) to make it more believable.

Question: If we have evolved from the monkeys, shouldn't they be extinct?

Darwin's Evolution theory does not only cover the evolution of man, but of all species, saying that all species are from a common ancestry. This is shown through the Evolution Tree of Life. We are classified as Primates as are all monkeys, apes and chimpanzees. Humans evolved from the same ancestor as the primates through a mutation in a chromosome fusion, causing us to have a different amount of chromosomes then other primates. There are different families of primates classified by their characteristics. These characteristics were changed from the original ancestor, through natural selection, or genetic mutations which cause a genetic change that can be inherited by all descendants. Natural selection and genetic mutations would have caused the evolution branch of different types of monkeys, apes and chimpanzees and we would have evolved from the same ancestor as them., fro

Evolution is a religion not science

Evolution means the process by which the different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. No one can prove evolution that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved because one can only observe what exists in the present and not the past. We know that there were no scientists or any human being millions of years ago to witness the forming of the first life of any kind, and of course, we cannot repeat the occurring of the event just so we can take down the observations. All the information and evidence the scientists have is from the research that only exists right now in the present.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

Evolution is a religion because there is no actual information and fact to prove it, so we can either become evolutionists who believes that the theory is true and follow the theory or we can ignore this and spend our times on things we might actually be able to find out the truth to. For things that cannot be proven, no one is there to tell us what is true and false. It is true if we truly believe in it.“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

Should either intelligent design or evolution not be taught?

Intelligent design and evolution are two different beliefs that people have the right to go by. Should either intelligent design or evolution not be taught? Isn't it what someone believes in, themselves? Schools shouldn't be making this decision for students. People have the right to believe in what they choose and schools can't control that. If schools are enforcing one belief and blocking out the other, shouldn't it be what the student decides, and what their family decides? Yes. It should be up to the individual. However, if a family believes in intelligent design and the school is enforcing teaching evolution and only that method, then by all means that family has the right to withdraw their child from the school if they so desire. A school cannot make a student believe something. They can try to enforce a believe on students but in the end it will always be the student deciding. Not the school.
But some school boards have troubles deciding what should and what should not be taught in class. It should be up to the school board to decide and all the teachers and members of that school should agree on the decision. There can't be a couple teachers deciding they won't teach intelligent design, or evolution. They all have to agree. If parents at the school don't like this situation then they can easily pull their child out of the school and move. If the parents don't agree with the school that's up to them. But they shouldn't put the school through problems just because they don't agree with some decisions.
However, it can be a tough decision deciding what to teach. The board could have two different beliefs and then they would have to choose. They should have the right to choose though. They should have the full decision what should or should not be taught at their school.

Should Religion be taught in schools?

Question: Religion is a practice someone chooses to follow, intelligent design is a religious theory hiding under different words. Who gets to decide that religion be taught at a school and not as a choice?
A religion is a practice someone chooses to follow, a religion shouldn't be forced upon a person if they do not believe or want to follow the religion. It is well known that many people believe in Intelligent Design. They like to say that a "designer" is the creater. Who is the designer? Now most people that do not believe in intelligent design would say that the designer is God; the believers dont want to classify the creator as god because then it is a religious view and therefore could not be taught in schools. But because they have changed the words and meanings a bit it could be taught. Who gets to decide that religion be taught at a school not as a choice? Because it is basically religion talking. It is thought that it should not be taught seeing as practicing a religion is a choice.

The premise of this argument would be that intelligent design is a religious theory hiding under different words. While the conclusion would be that religion is a practice someone chooses to follow.

This would be a Deductive Argument. This is because the premise is true which would mean that the conclusion would have to be true. Which means we have a valid argument. Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools because that would be almost forcing someone to believe a religion that is not what they believe in. Although some people might not agree with Evolution, but unlike intelligent design it has much more evidence that makes sense and can be explained. If someone equates teaching evolution with forced belief I would say to them that the subjects aren't very similar. This is because we have proof of evolution. Some people may not believe in evolution and complain that, that is like forcing them to believe; but its not like they are being lied to. What is being taught is proved and is true. Students in high school choose what they want to believe. Just because its being taught doesn't mean they will believe it. For the reasons above this is why intelligent design (based on religious views) should not be taught in schools.

Is Balancing Darwinism and Creationism Realistic for Classrooms?

Darwinism and Creationism are two completely different beliefs about how the world came to be. There is much controversy between the two beliefs resulting in difficult choices about what to teach in the classroom. Creationism has to do with religion and one person being the major creator. Darwinism and his theory of Evolution is easier tested and proved with Science. In a classroom, students should learn what they believe is true. It is realistic however, to teach both and give the students and idea of what mind sets are out there surrounding the situation. Having a discussion about both theories in the classroom might bring up controversy between students beliefs but that just means that every individual has their own views. Since both Creationism and Darwinism are known and recognised, they should be brought up in Science classrooms. Even if the students don't believe in one, they should still be aware of what is out there about the subject and given a base of knowledge around it. In school, students are supposed to be educated on the world around them and the subjects that the government thinks are neccessary; so they should include both ideas considering the world around them deals with both ideas. Over all it is their choice in what they want to believe in but they should be introduced to both. If students aren't educated of the existence of both of these ideas, later in life they might have no idea and be forced into believing something they don't even know the half of. It's better to be educated and not believe in one, than to not be educated at all and not know what to believe. Although, Creationism can not be proved completely while Evolution has much more evidence and scientists have cam a long way in studying evolution. Research can back up Evolution and can not prove Creationism. Shouldn't the theory of Evolution be taught considering it has back up and a long history of research behind it?

Should teachers be forced to read out the "Gaps" in Darwins theory?

No, teachers should not be forced to read out the few "Gaps" in Darwins theory. The Dover School Board made it mandatory in every science classroom of that the teachers would read out a one minute script discussing and explaining the "Gaps" in Darwins scientific theory of evolution. This is wrong because every scientific theory has "Gaps", for example gravity is just a theory it may not be because of the metals in the earth's core rotating around each other, but that the earth is falling upwards at 9.8 m/s causing gravity. The teachers should not have to read or teach about the other weird things in science because the exclusion of intelligent design theory at the top of their priorities means that they do not care about the science in their argument but they just want their religion to be secretly taught and supported in school. Theory,Phenomenons that occur naturally in the universe and one that have been tested. Then the board force the teachers to go over every theory and its "Gaps"? The school board doesn't make the teachers go over all of those theories because those theories do not clash with their religion. So the Dover School science teachers should not have to read the "Gaps" in Darwin's theory of evolution or any other theory because a theory is accepted as a theory not a fact.

Is balancing Darwin's Theory of Evolution with Intelligent Design realistic for classroom?

Is teaching Darwin's Theory and Intelligent Design in the classroom a good idea? It depends, on which class it is in, if it is in a Biology class than no, if it is in a Critical Thinking course than yes.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that has stood up to hundreds of years of testing. Due to this fact it actually holds a lot more weight than people believe. The main reason people think less of evolution is because it is called a theory. But what they do not understand is that a scientific theory in order to survive must pass all of the test that scientist perform. So a scientific theory that has stood up to two hundred years of testing holds a lot of power.

Intelligent Design is not structured the same way and therefor can not go thought the same process as the Theory Evolution. The reason for this is that it makes the argument that life is to complicated for natural selection so it must have been designed; this is solely based on observation, making it extremely hard to test. Also in resent years Intelligent Design has been linked to creationism an idea about how the world was created. Along with this Intelligent Design has also been linked to specific religion, Christianity in which the idea of creationism is upheld.

Being linked to a religion as well as being untested gives all the more reason why Intelligent Design should not be taught in a biology classroom. But this should not detour it from being taught in a philosophy themed courses.

Just like we teach the theorems of friction and gravity as fact, should we not teach Darwinian evolution in the same way?

The answer to the following question is no. We cannot teach the Darwinian theory similarly to how we teach the theorems of gravity and friction. We can't do this because you can observe gravity or friction, but you cannot observe evolution. Since you cannot truly prove the Darwinian theorem then it is valid that we spend time on both theories we have in the present day. That is of course the theory of Intelligent Design and the Darwinian theory. The Darwinian theory has too many holes in it to be simply accepted like gravity and friction.

Of course, many people ask me then as an avid Intelligent Design believer, who the Intelligent Designer is. The awnser is simple: there is no one designer. Our designers are the Raelians, who, in my belief, created us in their image as clones. There are many examples within the bible and many other religious texts, such as the Quran, that clearly prove our out-of-this-world creation. Things on our planet are simply too complex to have simply being created by "random mutation". The idea of this is just plain dumb. I love to go back to Micheal Behe's classic example of the complexity of the bacterial flagellum which is simply to "machine" like to have been created by mere chance. Simply looking at this reminds me of the intelligence of our designers, the Raelians. Furthermore, if we look at the world around us we can see that organisms are different and we do not see them adapting into all sorts of different specimens as Darwin says. Simply by careful observation we can tell that evolution is but a myth theorem that provided answers for people at a time when science wasn't advanced enough to discover the truth about our creators.

Thank you and happy hunting.

Is there anyway to scientifically prove the idea of “Intelligent Design”?

Question: Is there anyway to scientifically prove the idea of “Intelligent Design”?

First of all: What is "Intelligent Design"? This so-called theory or proposition is the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."(Discovery Institute, 2007) Lets look at the source of this quote. The Discovery Institute is an organization that advertises itself as program that "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory". This definition would inherently imply that Intelligent Design is a fact, as it "supports scientists", and "improves schools", but yet there seem to be some disagreement among the "enlightened community". To quote Henry M. Morris (Ph. D.) of the Institute for Creation Research, which advocates for both Intelligent Design and Creationism, "(Intelligent Design) is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms." This would seem to suggest that Intelligent Design is merely Creationism (the basis of how the world was created, based on the beliefs of there being an omnipotent God), rephrased; These "scientists" are really men of good faith, who have replaced the word "God" in their arguments with the self-introduced phrase "Intelligent Agent". Is is, as proclaimed by countless supporters, a science that "proves" (mono)theism.

So sticking with the same belief that Judge Jones, representing the United Stated Supreme Court, had in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which is that Intelligent Design is Creationism, rephrased (or replaced) to become legal and constitutional to teach in school, the question changes to: Can Creationism be scientifically proven? The simple answer to this is, no!

Lets look at this "theory". It states that God, or an "Intelligent Agent" designed some forms of life on Earth, therefore filling in the gaps left by the theory of Darwinian Evolution. Now while Evolution is just a theory, and not fact, there is loads of evidence to back it up. Should it be taught as a fact? That's different argument, but I'd like to point out that the theories of Gravity, Friction, and the spherical nature of the Earth are not fact either, despite them being taught so in schools.

So what is the "proof" that these Creationists/Intelligent Designers propose? The fact that some things in nature are "irreducibly complex", or impossible to have formed on their own as they would be useless. The example they focus on is the "living motor" of the bacterial flagellum, but it has already been proven that parts of this could have developed for a completely unrelated purpose. As well, the lack of an explanation for one thing does not disprove the theory of Evolution,and by the same token one questionable fact does by no means prove Intelligent Design. Their other bit of "proof"? The fact that some aspects of life work so perfectly, "they look like a creation of an 'Intelligent Agency'". However, the foundation of Darwin's Evolution disproves this, as those "designed" elements could easily be the work of Natural Selection, whereby the most useful or beneficial traits and mutations are passed on through generations of a species, and the detrimental ones die out.

Of course, there's no way to prove 100% that Intelligent Design is not scientific fact, but with our current technology and methods of researching, I believe that, just as we assume the quantum-mechanic theory to be fact, we can also assume Intelligent Design cannot be proved as fact. As well, the fact that we can prove almost all aspects of life have evolved from earlier, less complex aspects should be proof enough.

While I could go on forever listing reasons why Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be proven through scientific fact, as there is no universal evidence, and the "facts" given can be scientifically disproved, I don't have that much time. To conclude: Evolution is a theory with many gaps, but much supporting evidence; to the contrary, Creationism (and therefore "Intelligent Design" has no scientific basis, is a product of religion, and as agreed upon by the US Supreme Court, not real science. So no, there is no way to scientifically prove the idea of "Intelligent Design".

Could intelligent design and evolution could be a combination?

Could the writer possibly mean to ask if the two theories could be combined as one? Or if they are already in fact the same thing? Well, there is no way that these are two non-contradicting theories, because there are parts of each that directly contradict each other. In intelligent design it says that organisms were created with detailed and complicated features already intact, and that an “intelligent designer” put them in place. While in evolution, it says life started many, many years ago, with very, very simple life forms, and they were put there by some unexplained event. And from the first batch of organisms, reproduction and random mutations gave some organism’s different features than others. Some of these features could proved to be useful, and helped them survive and prosper to reproduce plentifully. This made many different adaptations in many different environments. The two theories can only be combined if you have a halfway where intelligent design ends and evolution begins. In this theory, there was an intelligent designer who created some of the root species that many other species have since evolved from. So these theories can, in theory, be combined, but it would take away base elements of the theory of evolution, and they are not at all already the same theory, Intelligent design is more to the side of religion, magic, and definitely creationism, whereas evolution is one the side of science and evidence.

Intelligent Design is Creationism

People who support this theory are supporting the idea that one 'designer' built man at exactly one moment in time. This designer could only be God because he is what Christians believe created man. Therefore intelligent design is a code name for creationism. Intelligent design is religious, not scientific.

Is it possible for an idea to be both religious and scientific?

It is impossible for an idea to be both religious and scientific because they contradict each other. Religion states that Man was created by God, however science states that man evolved over time from a common ancestor. There is no way that both ideas could be connected because they are completely different. Perhaps, in the future, science will discover a connection between religion and science. Then finally, the conflict between the two about evolution will be resolved.