How does intelligent design explain dinosaurs

We know from the fossil record that man and dinosaurs were segregated by millennia. Young-Earth creationists believe that the world was, indeed, created in just seven days some 4, to 6, years ago. This falls 4. Francis Beckwith, professor of philosophy and church-state studies at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas, in an article in the fine journal First Things, sharpens your comment about dinosaurs by quoting scientist Kurt Wise:.

It was there that night that I accepted the word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science. ID promises a middle ground by asserting that evolution is true, but that it reflects the work of an intelligent designer, who is obviously God.

God created evolution so that it could eventually evolve us. Scientists have condemned intelligent design. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that — an illusion.

Hoyle imagines that life on Earth is not a statistical fluke but instead part of a greater cycle of evolving intelligences in the universe. Establishing the identity of the designer as a robotic silicon-based intelligence is a difficult, but not necessarily impossible, task. Yet a search for some general evidence of directed panspermia does suggest a few avenues of inquiry. Crick and Hoyle held that the genetic code on Earth could provide clues to implicate extraterrestrial beings as the designers of life.

A few scientists have argued that specific patterns in statistical analyses of genomic data might indicate that features of our genetic code were designed, which could add support to the directed panspermia hypothesis, although none of these arguments have been conclusive or convincing to the broader scientific community.

Others have analyzed sequences in DNA for encoded messages, possibly inserted by intelligent designers as a calling card. No such patterns have yet been found. The premise of directed panspermia of course requires the existence of intelligence life on other planets. If Crick and Hoyle are correct in their premise that Earth is a less-than-ideal world for the origin of life, then we should expect to discover planets around other stars that seem to be better suited.

The search for radio and optical signals from extraterrestrial intelligent beings is another way to look. If life on Earth really did begin from the design of extraterrestrial beings, then perhaps we might someday establish remote communication with them. Further research on the origin of life is even more promising. These topics and others all suggest a scientific direction of inquiry that could ultimately help to test the idea of directed panspermia. Directed panspermia is not the best explanation of the data available today, but it remains a scientifically grounded idea that implicates an intelligent designer as responsible for life on Earth.

It makes no claims that attach it to any particular religion or creed. We have nothing to fear from teaching a genuinely scientific theory of intelligent design in public schools. In fact, directed panspermia provides an excellent vehicle for students to understand the themes of astrobiology and the complexities of evolution.

Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record. The fossil record provides powerful evidence for intelligent design.

Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology , pg. Campbell, Jane B. Mitchell 5th ed. Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer eds. Norton, Barnes, P. If ID is accepted as a credible science, then the most basic definition of a scientific theory and the fundamental principles of the scientific method are not being taught. Johnson is right: ID can be the wedge that splits science wide apart. Science education is already in trouble in the United States, particularly in comparison to other countries.

On international tests, U. As the scientific preparedness of American students falls, others fill the gap. At American institutions in , 41 percent of those receiving doctoral or professional degrees in biological science, engineering and physical science combined were international students. Similarly, in the U.

Census, Should Johnson's vision come to pass, these numbers are likely to worsen, and our country will jeopardize its position of leadership in many kinds of scientific research, including medicine, agriculture and biotechnology.

ID is an insidious attempt by a religious caucus to impose its views on the whole country. The avowed aim of ID advocates—to undermine science and replace it with their personal religious convictions—amounts to a form of prejudice that is both poisonous and horribly frightening. Inevitably, young people will suffer most. As Francisco Ayala wrote in "From the President" July-August , science training will be a fundamental necessity in the technological world of the future. As scientists, we must stop ignoring the ID movement.

It won't go away. Each of us must learn to avoid jargon in order to communicate better with the public. Every scientist should become a mentor; share your experience of the wonder and beauty of science!

Finally, critically, we must expose Intelligent Design for what it really is: religious prejudice masked as intellectual freedom. Skip to main content. Login Register. Page DOI: First, they argued that Leonard's research questions contained a fundamental flaw: There are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this fundamental principle of biology.

As such, it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice that we regard as unethical. The Center's publicly stated aims include: challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory; As Johnson cynically told an interviewer: [Y]ou have to have people that talk a lot about the issue and get it up front and take the punishment and take all the abuse, and then you get people used to talking about it.

It becomes an issue they are used to hearing about, and you get a few more people and a few more, and then eventually you've legitimated it as a regular part of the academic discussion.