Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: birth of civilization
“Where did that come from?” Is an innocuous enough question in mundane circumstances, but when applied to something as complex as the human race – and by proxy, to all life – the issue becomes incredibly clouded. The argument that humans and the material universe they inhabit resulted from the conscious and deliberate actions of an outside entity can sound at least passably convincing, even if one is determined to accept biological evolution as an established fact. It is fairly easy to dismiss literal Biblical creationism as irrelevant and/or inappropriate for the discussion of science, but it is harder to object to the formulation of a more sophisticated view that the universe’s form and structure shows signs of having been designed.
To understand the fundamental logic behind intelligent design, consider the rational mind’s instinctive reaction to two different events: If Bob were to win the lottery when the odds of doing so were one-in-one-billion, rational minds are not immediately tempted to think that Bob somehow cheated in order to win. But if Bob were to win several consecutive lotteries set at odds of one-in-one-thousand, it becomes increasingly more tempting to accuse Bob of cheating. The structure of the latter scenario is such that it justifies a belief that cheating was involved: Bob getting lucky in one lottery is consistent with the contest’s inherent randomness, but getting lucky in three consecutive lotteries is a reliable indicator that Bob’s victories were the intended result of someone’s intelligent input into what was intended to be a random system. Despite the probability of winning three consecutive one-in-one-thousand games being exactly the same as the probability of winning a single one-in-one-billion gam...
... middle of paper ...
... universe and the evidence that we can observe with our own two eyes both appear to point to the deliberate intervention of a cognizant, intelligent being somewhere in humanity’s distant past. Whether this agent was in fact the monotheistic God, a pantheon of gods and goddesses, extraterrestrials, or something else entirely remains up for debate, but the simple fact is that human life is simply too ingenious and complicated to have arisen by dint of evolution alone.
References:
1. George N. Schlesinger, New Perspectives on Old-time Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988)
2. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Touchstone Books, 1996)
3. Gee, H., In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of life (1999).
4. Scherer, S., "Basic Types of Life" in Mere Creation, edited by Dembski 195-211 (1998).
In 1986, Richard Dawkins suggested that Paley's "design" argument might have been the best explanation in the 19th century for the existence of God and the intelligent design of the universe in his novel The Blind Watchmaker. Although Paley succeeded in making his argument, Dawkins argued that it had one major defect; the explanation itself. “Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” (Dawkins : 606) Paley gave the traditional religious answer to who our designer is: God.
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
Philip G. Fothergill, Historical Aspects of Organic Evolution, pub. 1953 by the Philosophical Library Inc., 15 East 40th Street, New York, NY
Bowler, Peter J. Evolution: The History of an Idea. London: University of California Press, 1989.
Darwin, Charles, M.A. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 1859. Print.
Zhao, Buyun. "Charles Darwin & Evolution." Charles Darwin & Evolution. Christ's College, 2009. Web. 04 May 2014.
There have been various theories of the creation of the universe and mankind, each drawing back to either religion or science, or a combination of both. Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man and the Genesis accounts are often seen as personifications of two opposing views of our universe. Charles Darwin is a representation of evolution; the development of species through a lengthy process of natural selection. On the contrary, Genesis is a representation of creation by the Bible; God’s creation of both mankind and the Earth around them. Even though the accounts are inherently opposing and each claim to possess an indisputable explanation of the universe, they contain the following similarities; both portray the human image inappropriately and both indirectly rely on the opposing belief.
The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complicated structures of biology and that these causes are analytically evident. Certain biological features defy the random-chance explanation because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically requires an intelligent designer, the appearance of design means there is evidence for a designer.
Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be referenced to as an alien. Intelligent design leaves that possibility open as well. Many professionals feel that intelligent design is not a scientific theory that can be tested. They feel it is more of an opinion, preference, or belief.
Darwin, Charles. From The Origin of Species. New York: P.F. Collier and Son Corporation, 1937. 71-86; 497-506.
Hoagland, Mahlon B., The Roots of Life A Layman’s Guide to Genes, Evolution and the Ways of Cells. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1978, p. 149.
1996 "What Is a Species, and What Is Not?" Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, No. 2: 262-277.
There are unexplainable things on Earth and scientist are still trying to figure these things out. In spite of that, some people still want to believe that these things were just here before us. Moreover, if these things were just here we as a human race, being the smartest species should have already figured everything out, but we have yet to complete the task of figuring the world out. Furthermore, there are large amounts of the world that have not even been discovered. Everything has an origin in this world. Scientist say everything was made from bacteria of some sort considering they were supposedly the first living organism on Earth. It makes little to no sense at all to say then entire world derived from bacteria. Moreover, others may say we evolved from evolution which bacteria could have initially been apart of, but there are things and features of the Earth that even evolution cannot take credit for. Paley argued, “The universe exhibits the same order, complexity, and purpose and so it can be seen to have been produced by a Creator” (Paley, 60). There is no protest to this argument, he is absolutely
Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature. New York: Pantheon Books.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see. Today science may come across as having more solid evidence and grounding than religion because of scientific data that provides a seemingly more detailed overview of life’s complexity. “Einstein once said that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Polkinghorne, 62). Yet, we can still use theories and ideas from both, similar to Ian Barbour’s Dialouge and Integration models, to help us formulate an even more thorough concept of the universe using a human and religious perspective in addition to scientific data.