6 Scientific Laws That Require Intelligent Design (for the non-scientist)

Contrary to the title, I picked these 6 scientific laws not because they require intelligent design, (I am a self professed creationist so of course I believe all scientific observations are dependent on intelligent design) but because they are so extraordinarily fundamental that they are the building blocks of greater scientific studies.  Inasmuch, there is the necessity for this information to be understood commonly; in other words, as plain to the public as all mainstream accepted sciences and fundamentals.

Note:  Considering my point is biased against the case for macroevolution, the definitions provided are from different and universally credible sources.

Without delay…

Survival of the Fittest

def.  the principle that animals and plants suited to the conditions they live in are more likely to stay alive and produce other animals and plants than those that are not suited

source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/survival-of-the-fittest

Probably the most common and misused phrase used among people.  Fortunately awareness of this phrase has spread considerably.  It deserves little explanation; simply those organisms that can better reproduce, do so.  Consequently, those not fitted as well for reproduction are less likely to survive.  Since genes/inheritance and environment play such a critical role in this law, the relation to creationism will continue as we progress with terms.  For now, it is suffice to say that survival of the fittest, due to it’s complete reliance on the following laws, is dependent upon intelligent design.

Gregor Mendel; Law of Inheritance

def.  that many maternal and paternal traits do not “merge” in the offspring, but are instead passed intact; that some of these characteristics are dominant while other characteristics are recessive; and that the inheritance of such traits obeys simple statistical laws.

source:  http://www.nndb.com/people/015/000083763/

Gregor Mendel discovered that traits passed from parents to offspring are pre-existing and shuffled.  This brings different assortments but no new genes.  As quoted from this text book (it’s a creation based book), there are obvious limitations to these combinations.  If we are looking at an enumerable amount of global species, yet none having the ability to have been formed by inheritance, it would require spontaneous creation of said species.  (Ahh, we’re getting warmer)

Natural Selection

I separated this law from Survival of the Fittest, even though one is almost a complete echo of the other, they express different characteristics of the same scientific principle.

def. A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

source:  http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection

Whoa now, that was a really long way to say that an offspring has different variations in traits from its parents.  Some of these traits will reproduce more than others, likewise, those traits will tend to create more offspring.  This is due to natural influences such as environment and genes.  This is the “selection.”  What has to be noticed from this is that this law only observes the selection, not creation of genes… hence the very obvious name.  Again, this implies the same fundamental of simultaneous creation instead of evolved creation as the previous laws.

Acquired Characteristics

def. A nonhereditary change of function or structure in a plant or animal made in response to the environment.

source:  http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Acquired+characteristics

Acquired characteristics are just as implied, acquired and not passed by means of genes.  The implication of a characteristic being acquired is that it is an occurrence after birth (obviously).  These traits are not gene mutations and therefore cannot be passed through offspring.  What, instead, has been witnessed is that certain genetic material is enacted due to what the environment has caused.  Again, this implies no “new” gene development, but instead the involvement of existing genes.

Mutations

def. a change in the genes of a plant or animal that causes physical characteristics that are different from what is normal

: a new form of something that has changed

source:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutation

“Mutation” is simply the name we give a piece of genetic material that has changed.  People have turned it into a vulgar word that must be ignored.  There are two schools of thought when it comes to mutations.  Either mutations happen repeatedly enough to cause speciation (macroevolution), or it stays on a small scale (microevolution).  Macroevolution is an attempt to explain a change in species while microevolution is the explanation for subtle (and sometimes not so subtle changes) that don’t cause speciation.

The problem:  in order for speciation to occur (the rise of a new species), several mutations must occur.  Too many to count since genetic material is so advanced.  But to be plain… if a leg were to evolve into a wing, it must first become a bad leg.  Mutations are kept only if they are useful to an organism.  Else the mutation is discarded.  Certain mutations are prone to happen again, although they are always discarded.  With that said, in order for the above mentioned leg to become a useful wing, during its mutation process it must first become a bad leg thus being discarded and no occurrence of speciation.

Moreover, we’ve never witnessed nor found evidence of in-between species where the “in-between legs” so to speak are there.  One might argue the neanderthal although they lack evidence for the “ape” so we’re still talking of humans.

Biogenesis

def.

(1) The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.

(2) It asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing.

source:  http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Biogenesis

Biogenesis is the observation that life simply cannot come from non-life.  It has never been observed and no scientific model can make it look possible.  This law is accepted by the grand majority of scientists; even those who side with mainstream evolution.  Although they simply ignore it when it comes to the spontaneous happening of the first living organism.  If life had come from such a spontaneous happening, it would have been done at the hand of a magic wand… but wait… who was waiving that wand?  Well I guess that busts that theory too.

Bare in mind that these 6 Laws mentioned are fundamentals.  They are widely accepted whether or not you are to side with evolution or divine creation; insomuch that we have used these laws as the corner stones for our current studies and technology in biology.  Unfortunately they are treated as half-truths due to the nonacceptance of how they are possible.