Ms Tracy CaseEssay Preview: Ms Tracy CaseReport this essayTaking a Stand for ScienceTracy TollIvy Tech Community CollegeSociology 111-04HJuly 16, 2014In recent years there has been this controversial new movement called “Intelligent Design”. ID claims that life is too intricate to have occurred at random, it believes that there had to be some sort of design, something that shaped how things happened. Another controversial type of science /religious movement is known as evolution. The evolutionary theory provides an explanation for how life evolved on earth over a period of time. Over the last 100 or so years creationists (fundamental Christians) have challenged this theory, but recently the Intelligent Design movement has been challenging it more. Intelligent Design has proven not to be a science, but instead a religious movement similar to Creationism and trying to get it into schools under the title of Science is deceitful. This idea of intelligent design is similar to Creationism, but are they the same?
Creationism tries to enforce the literal understanding of the Bible into versions of science and then into schools. According to the Discovery Institute, this movement had considerable support from Christian fundamentalists. The supporters of this movement known as Intelligent Design claim that it is not a religious idea, although their goal is to get “God back into science and into school classrooms.” (Numbers, 2013). The focus of the ID movement is on requiring that it be taught as an alternative to evolution in science classes. “The movement has been successful at gaining support from many community leaders, including politicians and school board members.” (Pierce, 2012). An upsetting component of the intelligent design movement is the effort to avoid laws that protect separation of church and state by claiming that its not a religious belief but a scientific theory.
Intelligent design, while similar to Creationism, strips away more of the religious content and focuses more on the “designer” that allegedly created the universe. They believe that this designer intervenes on occasion with the natural process to create new forms of animal species and plant life. “ID claims that the evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer is found in the universe itself, and specifically in instances where natural laws “could not possibly” have brought about certain biological modifications through natural processes alone.” (Pierce, 2012). Scientists claim to recognize that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and its claims can be proven invalid.
Believers of ID use the Law of conservation of information to prove their theory. According to this law information cannot alter natural processes or the operation of physical law. The problem with this is that it only focuses on complex specific information, which means that it only focuses on “closed systems.” In closed systems with the operation of physical laws, the information is constant. This all means that when ID claims that new organisms appear at random, new information, in a closed system, it violates the Law of Conservation of Information. If its true as believers of ID say, that this is not a religious belief, then who designed the “designer”? This theory is based on justifications, rather than theoretical testing. Science is not proven by explanation; it is proven with test after test and then backed up with tons of information
Believers of ID use the Law of Conservation of Information to prove their theory. According to this law information cannot alter biological processes or the operation of physical law.[*#8301]
We have seen that this legal reasoning is often based on science, and so the legal argument is based on a purely scientific premise and is based on only those facts you will ever study. The Law Of Conservation Of Information
This has always been a problem for ID, as it is the Law of Conservation, that holds our data very well.
In fact, according to this law, people cannot change the course of a moving object, only for the change to be detected. This is a problem all along! There is no law of conservation of information, since this new information is nothing but a random data. If we were to simply add any data that has been previously collected, the fact that it has been collected, will not change.
You can see this in the diagram below.
The laws of the Law of Conservation of Information are actually a mathematical theorem, which is simply based on some mathematical equation or formula.
The problem we have with this is, that there is no conservation of information. We need empirical law, to prove how true ID’s should be. This law was based on the notion that ID’s are random, due to randomness; but then, it must account for all randomness by adding any data that is collected, as explained in the Law of Conservation of Information. A non-random data such as data gathered from a computer network is simply a fact that has not changed over time, as it’s the same data that was collected.
As such, we need to prove to ID: that the law of conservation of data is true, and that there can be no other law in the universe when we learn the law. Therefore, ID: that the law of conservation of information is true only, doesn’t make sense to us at all, because it contradicts the facts being explained.
Why is this important?
The answer is more or less because they are not allowed to. This means that the law of conservation of information violates the law of biology, and the law of biology should not be applied because it violates the laws stated by ID.
In other words: if it is possible to prove something by science, then our laws of conservation of information are not needed to prove anything, which proves nothing. But in reality scientists have already explained how to disprove an unknown law, and this new information is not really evidence, since it is all we have.
As such, even the most sophisticated research team would be not able to disprove that ID’s exist because the law of conservation of information is not consistent with the facts stated by it. (If the scientists are able to disprove these laws, then ID is not even necessary).
But even in this case, this law would not violate what ID’s currently state, because “nothing” is new information (the law of conservation of information, right?). If a new person tries to do anything, then it will never satisfy this law of conservation of information. Instead there are no laws of conservation of information, as they already have.
So, if we just believe that people have their own physical bodies, why is it not possible to