Intelligent Design theory and creationism both believe life formed on earth from a single being. This being is far more intelligent than human being, and was needed to produce the most intricate and complex designs to form life. Each are very similar in explaining an individual being acted alone in the development of life on earth. Both theories of ID and creationism deny all scientific data supporting natural selection as the foundation of evolution. They’re answer to natural selection are an intelligent designer or a supernatural being. For example, they often affirm that the intelligent designer they have in mind is super- natural (Johnson 1991; Dembski 2002), and most deny common ancestry (Davis and Ken- yon 1993; Dembski 1999) Now, one
…show more content…
Believes “creation-science” is not science. Ruse, first explains to us what is science. Ruse says, “that “science” is not easily definable. He said, “Science is a phenomenon that has developed through the ages-dragging itself apart from religion, philosophy, superstition, and other bodies of human opinion and belief.” Ruse says that what we know as science today is, “distinctive set of claims, which have a number of characteristic features.” It is very difficult to determine what is science, and what is not science. Many scientific claims fall short, and are considered non-science or pseudoscience. He states, “science looks for unbroken, blind, natural regularities (laws). Things in the world do not happen in just any old way. They follow set paths, and science tries to capture this fact.” Ruse say science is defined by a collection of laws. The major laws are explanation, prediction, testability, confirmation, and falsifiability. These laws help us disseminate between science and non-science. Religion does not follow the natural laws of science, since religious beliefs violate the “law” with the notion of miracles. Miracles are believed to be true events that happened, with no explanation for the phenomenon. Ruse says, “Science is about unbroken, natural regularity. It does not admit miracles. It is clear, creation science invokes happenings and cause outside of law…for creation-science the origin of the universe and life in it is not bound by law.” Also, he says, evolutions definitions specifically include the qualification of origins to be “naturalistic.” Naturalistic meaning that a theory is “subject to empirical law.” He says that their omission of this term means, no natural laws were implicated. Ruse would argue that science is tentative, and every scientist must be willing to accept the rejection of his/her theory he says, “in the face of empirical
Believes “creation-science” is not science. Ruse, first explains to us what is science. Ruse says, “that “science” is not easily definable. He said, “Science is a phenomenon that has developed through the ages-dragging itself apart from religion, philosophy, superstition, and other bodies of human opinion and belief.” Ruse says that what we know as science today is, “distinctive set of claims, which have a number of characteristic features.” It is very difficult to determine what is science, and what is not science. Many scientific claims fall short, and are considered non-science or pseudoscience. He states, “science looks for unbroken, blind, natural regularities (laws). Things in the world do not happen in just any old way. They follow set paths, and science tries to capture this fact.” Ruse say science is defined by a collection of laws. The major laws are explanation, prediction, testability, confirmation, and falsifiability. These laws help us disseminate between science and non-science. Religion does not follow the natural laws of science, since religious beliefs violate the “law” with the notion of miracles. Miracles are believed to be true events that happened, with no explanation for the phenomenon. Ruse says, “Science is about unbroken, natural regularity. It does not admit miracles. It is clear, creation science invokes happenings and cause outside of law…for creation-science the origin of the universe and life in it is not bound by law.” Also, he says, evolutions definitions specifically include the qualification of origins to be “naturalistic.” Naturalistic meaning that a theory is “subject to empirical law.” He says that their omission of this term means, no natural laws were implicated. Ruse would argue that science is tentative, and every scientist must be willing to accept the rejection of his/her theory he says, “in the face of empirical