Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters Essay

Pages: 6 (1765 words)  ·  Style: MLA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 5  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Evolution

¶ … Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters of Modern Evolutionary theory

The question of how life was created is one which has proven extremely tense throughout the duration of modern arguments. What was behind the design of the universe? What was responsible for the way the world has turned out? Such questions reefer to the debate between modern researchers in regards to the nature of the evolution of the modern world. Theorists who posit the idea of Intelligent Design believe that the world is much too complex to have been randomly allocated through successful mutations, as evolutionists believe. These thinkers believe that some intelligent being had to have been responsible for satisfying the exact needs of specific species within concentrated habitats. Yet, evolutionists staunchly disagree, and completely trust in the concept of natural selection through individual adaptations. According to the evolutionist theory, all realities of modern habitats are linked directly towards successful mutations which proved to adapt individuals to the current surroundings, therefore allowing for future reproductive success for that individual.

Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77
Life as we know it is an extremely complex conception. To imagine that all of our odd idiosyncrasies within our physical make up lies solely in random patterns proves to be a huge leap pf faith. The Intelligent Design theory posits that life is too complex to be absolutely random. In fact, the very nature of our existence, such complexities as our DNA prove that evolution is not plausible, (Meyer 268). This is further shown within the recent testing done within the field of genetics proves that there must be some sort of interaction between the tested and the tester,

Essay on Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters Assignment

Attempts to enhance the limited catalytic properties of RNA molecules in so-called ribozyme engineering experiments have inevitably required extensive investigator manipulation, thus simulating, if anything, the need for intelligent design, not the efficacy of an undirected chemical revolutionary process (Meyer 268).

The specific nature of our DNA and genetic make up is much too complex to be random, according to Intelligent Design theorists. Those individuals in support of the design theory also use the correlation between exact specifications from life's creatures and the random events which filled them. Life is much too complex to be completely randomized. Thus, an intelligent source must have had a hand in creating the specific complexities which then satisfied the needs of individual creatures in specific habitats.

Yet, evolutionists believe this conceit is completely unfounded. The major belief in evolutionism is the idea that all things as they are created from a random sequence of events and mutations which led to the strengthening of certain species and habitats. In this idea, it is the random mutations which are better suited for survival which drive a species towards developing, or evolving into new states of being, (Wells 8). Each mutation is unique, therefore presenting continual new traits into every species' population. From the successes of such variant mutations comes a stronger generation of each individual species, (Mayr 41). This also the accounts for the great variance between species in different locations, a main conceit of the evolutionary theory. Basically, in evolutionist theory, a mutation arises which leads to that individual's success in life. Based on their strength and adaptation via the mutation, those individuals tend to reproduce more often then weaker individuals who are unable to adapt to modern environments. Thus, the individual with the mutation spawns entire new generations with that or similar mutations allowing for future adaptations of his or her heirs, (Mayr 75). And so, within the theory of evolution, there is no need for a higher entity which would make intelligent decisions as to what was needed where to strengthen specific species. Instead, life itself is strong enough to develop where it sees fit. After several generations, the needs presented within the specific habitat are met through natural mutations which then strengthen individuals within particular habitats. This notion is regards to as Natural Selection, or the idea that the best mutated adaptations are then selected through a natural process to transfer their genes onto future generations, (Sloan 1). These natural adaptations then lead to branches of new species which are specifically adapt to their own unique habitats surrounding their development. This then allows species to diversify and create entire new genus which is more suited for survival within the specific contexts of each individual habitats.

The largest critique theorists of Intelligent Design present their evolutionist counterparts is that no levels of randomness could ever produce the world as we know it today. The entire evolutionist theory rests on the foundation of the benefits of randomness, yet proponents of Intelligent Design believe this to be the biggest fallacy. Every seemingly simple component of the earth's climate and habitats has sequential properties, and "As a result, the presence of specified information-rich sequences in even the simplest living systems would seem to imply intelligent design," (Meyer 274). Another critique Intelligent Design believers place on the evolutionist view which has dominated for so long -- fallacies. In many cases, the teaching of evolution to high school kids and beyond presents a breeding ground for falsified information, as seen in the case of embryo drawings in textbooks being completely different to the real images of embryos, "On the subject of Darwinian evolution, the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked evidence," (Wells 1). Further playing into this idea of fallacies, many Intelligent Design proponents refuse to believe in critical facts of Darwin's initial theory; in several cases, Darwin failed to find fossil evidence to back his claim, but still believed future research would come up with the missing pieces of the puzzle, (Wells 4). Findings of earlier excavations prove dubious, and several cases of fake fossil finds have been discovered over the generations. Scientists are supposed to provide trustworthy information, and in lack of such trustworthy findings, the evolutionist theory fails to present a solid foundation in which to place its basis for theory. In fact, design theorists staunchly defend their views against common evolutionist trends of blaming sheer ignorance for their theories.

Yet despite such efforts, Evolutionists still have staunch critiques based on serious confounds seen within the Intelligent Design debate. The most obvious critique is the concept that religion is the founding structure behind a scientific theory, "According to the news media, only religious fundamentalists question Darwinism evolution," (Wells 7). Many evolutionists believe that religion has taken too great of a hold within the foundations of Intelligent Design. The design of Intelligent Design is critiqued by evolutionists as being mistaken for some sort of god-like intervention; yet evidence as seen in fossil discoveries and study of specific habitats has proven that it is the individual mutations which are responsible for new adaptations -- not the decisions of a higher being. With such scientific evidence backing the evolutionist theory, most evolutionists consider their argument much stronger than the argument presented within the Intelligent Design theory.

Most recent court decisions regarding the nature of what are to be taught in American public schools has sided with the evolutionist sentiment. Although the famous case of Scopes v. The State of Tennessee in 1925 proved in favor of banning the theory of evolution in favor of more religious teachings, (Tungate 1).

Yet, since then most cases brought to state and federal Supreme Courts have ruled in favor of the evolutionist perspective. In fact, the infamous Scopes v. The State of Tennessee was eventually overturned, and evolution was made the typical curriculum within most American public schools.

Since that crucial change, several key court cases have arisen and kept the conflict between religious backed Intelligent Design and evolution. In fact, over 16 court cases have questioned the plausibility of teaching evolution within American classrooms. In 1968, when "the United States Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that a state statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional because it catered to a religious doctrine, thereby violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," (Tungate 1). This then set a precedent for favoring evolutionism over religious based theories regarding how the world came to be as it is today.

Yet, not all court rulings have been the complete victory of evolutionism. A crucial decision in 1982 created the idea of a balanced approach to teaching theories of how the world became what it is today. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education set the precedent of teaching evolution right along side various forms of creationism within public schools, (Tungate 1). Despite this finding, many school districts refused to add creationism and elements of Intelligent Design into school curriculum based on the idea that it did not posit true ideas about the true nature of evolution.

And so, various forms of creationism were allowed into student curriculum along side of the more logical evolutionist theory, in 1990, a major decision states that it was also unconstitutional to prohibit creationism, and therefore Intelligent Design, within school curriculum, (Tungate 2).

With all aspects of the… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (6 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design Is a Theory Term Paper

Phoenix Program Term Paper

satisfactory site? Modern warehouses, similar to manufacturing Essay

GIS Arcmap in Education Term Paper

Should More Children Be in Homeschooling Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters" Essay in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters.  (2008, November 30).  Retrieved October 1, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters."  30 November 2008.  Web.  1 October 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Proponents of Intelligent Design and the Supporters."  November 30, 2008.  Accessed October 1, 2020.