Intelligent Design?

If you have any questions during the writing, please ask. I can clear up anything you need.

For our final essay I’d like you to take one of your previous discussion essays (your choice) and approach that topic as if you were, first, a utilitarian, and second, a Kantian. First you will need to present the issue much like you did in your original discussion essay assignment. Then, you will assess that topic from the point of view of both utilitarians and Kant. Part of this will involve explaining the basic premises of each moral theory, and part will involve screening each moral viewpoint through the issue at hand. Finally, you will present your own view by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each theory as they pertain to the issue you’ve chosen. Please note: Some of our discussion essay topics will lend more readily than others to this type of assignment so be sure to choose your subject with this in mind.

Essays are to be 4-5 pages typed and double-spaced, or roughly 1200-1500 words. Standard rules of grammar and usage apply. References to text require only page numbers embedded in the actual paper. Outside sources are not necessary for this assignment.

You may paste your entire paper directly into the form area or you may type as a word document and upload the file to the forum. This assignments is worth 100 points.

Define the argument for intelligent design and define the so-called “clash” over intelligent design as it’s presented in our text. To what extent, if any, do proponents of intelligent design meet the criteria for the scientific method? Be sure to draw on some of the following as you present your view: The steps of the scientific method, the criteria for judging scientific theories, the warning signs of bogus science, and any other relevant material in our reading. Are you a proponent or opponent of intelligent design as evidence for god’s existence. Explain your view.

This my post: The Watchmaker Argument more commonly known as Intelligent design is “the complexity and diversity of life go beyond what evolution can explain.” A simpler explanation is the existence of someone who designed what was needed for a particular purpose, God. The “clash” refers to the difference of opinion in whether or not there is sufficient evidence in either direction to draw a definitive conclusion. What I mean by that rather wordy sentence, is that despite enough traction to draw a conclusion and support it, there isn’t enough to consider it proven.

There are six means steps to the scientific method: ask a question, do background research, construct a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, analyze your data and draw a conclusion, and report your results. Following this method what can we find from this reading that supports intelligent design? We ask a question, was there a creator that made everything we have today? The background research can support either side of the argument. The hypothesis is that evolution alone cannot produce such purposeful characteristics for humans, animals, or any other specimens in the world. Testing the hypothesis becomes more of a challenge since no one has been able to prove the existence of a God or any other entity, to have accomplished this feat. Analyzing and drawing conclusions leaves as many questions as answers, inconclusive. Reporting results seems to leave us at square one so to speak.

With the amount of material and evidence I have available to me, I would have to be an opponent of ID being proof of God’s existence. The passage states that many scientists believe in God, but “they see science as an effort to find how the material world works, with nothing to say about why we are here or how we should live.” While I believe in God, I can’t say that this is what makes me believe. None of the writing in this excerpt from the book changes how I live or see why things are the way they are. I dont disagree with the idea of intelligent design however I dont agree with it either. The concept is believable and makes some valid points. But the arguments on why ID is the answer seem like its grasping at straws instead of supporting its claim with fact.

Last Completed Projects