Home » Intelligent Design, Uncommon Descent Contest » Student essay contest: What difference does intelligent design make to science?

Student essay contest: What difference does intelligent design make to science?

Ribbon Clip Art

Thanks to a kind donor, we can sponsor an essay contest this summer.

We’ve all heard what the effect would be of accepting design as a cause in nature alongside of law and chance: Science hurtles back to the dark ages, fascism wipes out democracy, Armageddon arrives, and – worst of all – people who question Darwinism keep their jobs. Change the channel, and that’s just not happening.

So let’s look at real-world consequences. Here’s the question: How would acceptance of design, alongside law and chance, as a fundamental cause in nature change the way we do science?

Eligible entrants: High school, college, or university undergrads, worldwide.

Prizes: $200 first prize, $100 second prize

Length: 1200-1500 words

Deadline: Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Submit to: Uncommon Descent at [email protected]

Judges to be announced.

The winners will be announced at Uncommon Descent, and the winning essays published here.

(Note: You may write under a pen name, but Uncommon Descent must be able to verify your true identity. All entries held in confidence.)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to Student essay contest: What difference does intelligent design make to science?

  1. 1

    One idea i’ve thought about is the common blueprint concept.
    YEC creationists use this to explain why we look like apes.
    There is just a common blueprint in biology and everyone looks alike in major points of function.
    So some look more alike with like function.
    People were just given the best kind of biology for a being made in the image of God.
    Therefore everything must be from a common blueprint.
    therefore one function is eyesight.
    Could we heal blindness etc,(I have problems) by examining all creatures eyes as just equations of a single law of sight.
    So bypass our type of seeing mechanisms and go with other types because its doing the actual same thing.

    Evolution right now teaches eyes are from happanchance and so a dime a dozen with no common laws behind them at their roots.
    Creationisms can change concepts if we are right.

  2. Robert Byers:

    YEC creationists use this to explain why we look like apes.

    Is this the same Robert Byers who wrote:
    For YEC creationists it must be stressed our body and all biology was radically changed at the fall as recorded in Genesis.
    There is no reason to see our present body as exactly or close to the original.

  3. Therefore everything must be from a common blueprint.
    therefore one function is eyesight.

    Are you claiming that the eyesight of mammals, cephalopods, insects and trilobites all arose from a single blueprint?

  4. 4

    Heinrich
    Yes or rather I’m saying that idea creationism talks about of common blueprint behind all biology and so seeing the designer means that all eyes are just manifestations of a common law or equation of sight.
    This would be a new idea to not look at eyes as suited for each creature whether by the happanchance of evolution or God’s hand.
    Rather its all one idea of sight and minor details of types of eyes.

    I understand also that there is limits to types of eyes. A unlikely thing if evolution was true and working on everything for so long.

    Once again the eyes put evolution in a bad light.

Leave a Reply