Question

Intelligent design theory is an argument used by some people to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools. One of the supporters of this idea claims that certain biological structures, such as the bacterial flagellum, require so many complex parts working together in perfect synchronization that it is not possible that they could have evolved from simpler structures. This argument states that a simpler structure could not perform the same function, which is evidence of “irreducible complexity.” This is cited as evidence for an intelligent designer. Do you consider this theory scientific? Why or why not? Would you support the inclusion of this theory in the science classroom? If so, would you also support contrasting this theory to the theory of evolution? You are an aspiring gardener trying to live off the land. After asking for advice, a fellow gardener tells you to spray water on your plants before the night of a freeze. How do hydrogen bonds and water properties protect your plants from a night freeze? Explain in detail.

Answer 1

1. Intelligent design theory is a religious argument for the existence of God. The proponents of this theory believe that irresistible complexity is made by God. But according to me there is no evidence for such God created theory. A complex part may be evolved due to mutation and retaining a character. In future some parts are again made by mutation and retained by natural selection. And after a long time span these two characters can incorporate in each other to form a complex character. So I don't consider this theory scientific.

I don't support the inclusion of this theory in the science classroom.

The intelligent design theory is just a spiritual believe it has no scientific background.