Intelligent design advocates however are unable to provide true real flaws in evolutionary theory. For the Behe example, he uses the example of the flagellum as a irreducibly complex trait in an organism that therefore it must have been created by a designer. Even if it was even possible to be able to determine if a trait must have been created by a designer, scientist have found that when removing parts of the flagellum that it still functions just not in the same way. This addition on a different function or even addition on to no function can lead traits in organisms that arise naturally that have complex functions that seem irreducibly complex. Another argument we see to try to discredit evolution is in the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate when Ken brings up how different types of radiometric dating contradict each other when trying to use them to determine the age of the earth. This completely ignores that fact the we understand that certain radioactive isotopes have different half lives and that after a certain amount of time decaying the quantities will be too small to continue to be able to provide accurate readings from and the we know this and factor these things in when we are trying to determine age. Even though that disproving evolution doesn't get the hypothesis of Intelligent design any closer we still dont see any legitimate arguments that are able to poke these hole in evolution and since there is no evidence that intelligence must have been behind life as we know it there is no real reason to teach this in a science classroom as if it was a real "Controversy"
Recent comments