How can people be so ignorant as to support intelligent design?

Answer 1

Not so much ignorance as submissiveness to a parent figure ("God", ministers, etc.).

Answer 2

You can see from the ID proponents above, none of them have a firm grasp on the scientific method or scientific theory. They believe that if you can find some error in an established theory, then that theory is completely invalidated. Not only that, they believe that there is a default assumption, that God did it if no other belief holds water--in their eyes. This is not how science works.

In science, the default position for an unkown event is, "I don't know." The Big Bang and universe origins fit into this category. Science is based on empirical evidence, and we cannot gather or observe what happened before the Big Bang because our observable universe was defined at the Big Bang. Evolution is a completely separate matter because it ties together a complete understanding of the universe from the Big Bang to the development of modern science, which is a requirement. It works with all of the laws and principles of science. The only way to defeat or undermine such a Theory is to develop one that has more evidence and ties together more scientific laws. ID does not do this. In fact, Intelligent design has much larger gaps because it can't demonstrate what steps God took to make the universe nor humans, and it also doesn't have empirical evidence of God. They are in a logical loop because their belief in the divine is based on their observation of a complex reality (complexity reveals a creator), but they can't establish how such a complex being as the creator came to be because that would also imply, by their logic that the creator needed a creator.

The other failure in understanding is the development of theory. Science holds no theory as dogma. And while they would love to claim that evolution is just such a thing, they haven't been keeping up on their scientific reading. All theories are constantly under attack, but with the use of empirical evidence. Darwin's work was nice, but it had errors and didn't have enough empirical evidence at the time to be right. Science allows ideas to be built upon and dismantled. If you believe Darwin is the standard bearer of evolution, you're completely misinformed. DNA complete changed the picture of evolution as did the RNA World concept. Science is about developing theories, and it is set up so that you can make a name for yourself if you disprove or add onto someone else's work. If the basis of evolution hasn't been unseated yet, it isn't likely it will.

In the end, the best evidence for evolution is that we can apply that theory. We have used evolution to learn how to rapidly modify the behavior or architecture of a gene line by proper breeding, to predict the onset of specific flu strains, and evolution was the cornerstone of the discovery of DNA. DNA has let us directly modify the genes of living things to improve crop production and to produce insulin by using bacteria (we previously had to extract if from dead cows and pigs). The prediction of the flu strains and the mass production of insulin at rate we could never achieve cost effectively before saves thousands if not millions of human lives globally. What new scientific breakthrough has come out of Intelligent Design?

Answer 3

How can some people waste their time on theorys? What you see is not as real as God. What you see should prove to you there is a God. If you try and tell me we just became without a Creator then you need to go rethink some things. Ask any athiest how the whole universe came about to exist and I mean every galaxy, planet and star, also the ones still being created. Ask how the earth has one set speed it is to turn and one set speed to rotate around the sun. Also the sun is just at the right distance for life to be sustained here on earth which includes billions of diverse lifeforms (That according to athiests just popped out of nowhere or crawled out of the Ocean). Is it all just coincedence? Also ask them to get an empty mason jar and set it in their house somewhere and go back to the jar 20 or 30 years later or more if needed and see whats in it..........you know what would be in it? Still nothing. You have to have a Creator and it upsets the athiests. Also, it's easy for anyone to call themselves an athiest when life is good and you have your health but there is coming a day when death will be knocking at your door and that's when you see just how much of an athiest you really are.
Also for the big bang theory supporters........where did the material that went bang come from and the energy to make it go BANG? I'll tell you, God created it and he may have made a "BIG BANG" out of it to put it where he wanted it I won't dispute that because the Universe is still expanding. For evolution supporters, your still missing the "link" and you'll never find it. If you come up with a fossil of a man with gills and webbed feet, then we will discuss some issues but I'm sure your "missing link" will always be missing. All in all the athiests have too many questians to answer themselves that the Bible already explains. I'd rather believe there is a God and die and if there isn't I will then lose nothing but if there is a God and Creator and I've argued to people he isn't then I lose alot. Think it over friend. Are you really sure about denying God? The evidence is against you. The Bible, the only Holy written word of God explains all things past, present and future. There is no excuse for not having the knowledge, it's there.

Answer 4

John Allen Paulos (mathematician) has a negative view of some of the ID arguments and explained on of them in an article on ABCNews.com the other day:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2384584

He simply pointed out one major disagreement that exists over the "odds" of things turning out the way they have by random chance:

If you specify what the outcome has to be, then the odds almost insist on Intelligent Design, but if you do not specific a predetermined outcome, then ID is *not* necessary to have created our current world.

(It's like that old game you can play with the birthdays -- put 30 people in a room and two of them will most likely have the same birthday. This seems counter-intuitive, but only if you predetermine WHICH birthday has to match; this really limits the possibilities. However, if you allow any birthdays to match, the odds open up significantly.)

That being said, why do some religious people accept ID?

Just to discuss this openly, it's because the two sides have different criteria by which they judge things. In fact, both sides seem to view the other side as ignorant in some way -- the side being supported here believes that the religious folk are ignorant about science, while the religious folk generally see the other side as being ignorant over matters of spiritual significance.

For many religious folk, they have had subjective experiences that have defined "truth" for them -- as well as have experienced the reality of spiritual truth in how they live with other human beings.

So, in terms of how we treat each other as human beings, the rules they've come to believe are true are not really even considered by science, or even are seemingly opposed by science.

(In other words, often they see evolution = we are just animals, so we have no reason to act like we're NOT animals = indulgences, sin, aggression against others, lack of civility, etc.) The science of evolution to them opposes spiritual enlightenment.

So of course ID offers a plausible alternative to them to evolution -- which often they feel is being jammed down their throats, so they already dislike it as a matter of principle.

Meanwhile, of course, there is a great deal of hard data that can be used to pursue evolution, so you're seeing them as the ignorant ones at least in terms of scientific study.

While sometimes individuals can be thoughtless, I would avoid words like "ignorant" to generally describe either side. Sometimes it's simply that a person has different priorities based on their experiences and choices, and we all weigh out truth based on those priorities. I think aggressive cynicism such as expressed above will only make both sides more entrenched and unable to communicate.

Answer 5

Science is differentiated from philosophy by experiment. Philosophy seeks 'logical' proof. Scientists create hypotheses, then devise experiments to test them. Scientists know that their results are approximations, that their 'laws' are not immutable... not absolute. They do NOT (as creationists would have us believe) view their theories as absolute 'truth', in the same sense as creationists regard the Genesis story of creation as 'truth'.

What differentiates religion from both philosophy and science is that neither proof nor experimental confirmation is required. Religion can be summed up very succinctly: Where an obvious answer cannot be found in nature, make up an explanation based on the supernatural and accept it as a matter of 'faith'... faith in a 'truth' written in scripture as (claimed to have been) 'revealed' to someone by a transcendental, supernatural being.

Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. It is a 'red herring'... a 'Trojan Horse'. It is a carefully orchestrated subterfuge intended to create the PERCEPTION that there is a scientific controversy where no such controversy exists. It is religion/creationism in disguise, tarted up to look like 'science'. Here is the difference:

* At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, science says: "We don't know... OK, boys... let's roll up our sleeves, dig in and find out."

* At the bleeding edge of science, at the point where it REALLY starts to get interesting, Intelligent Design (imagine South Park - Officer Barbrady) says: "That's too complicated. God did it. Move along. Nothing to see here. Everybody go home now."

It would be easy to attribute Intelligent Design to intellectual laziness... but sadly, that is not the case. It is a conspiracy... a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign, designed to create the illusion of there being a 'scientific controversy' where none actually exists. The object is to sabotage science... to reintroduce religion to the public schools via subversion and subterfuge. The saddest thing about it is that a large percentage of Americans ARE intellectually lazy, and generally ignorant of the concept and processes of critical thought. They (enthusiastically) fall for this nonsense.

The objectives of the creationists who are promoting ID are spelled out in the Discovery Institute's so-called 'Wedge Strategy' (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html), which is a political strategy. The main plan is to "teach the controversy"... that being the claim that many scientists reject evolution... except that it is a lie... there IS NO controversy within the scientific community. The ultimate aim is the subversion of science itself, changing the definition of science to include supernatural explanations, rather than it being restricted to natural explanations.

The Wedge Strategy's overall objective is this (quoted directly from the Wedge Strategy): "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of (scientific) materialism and its cultural legacies."

You should check out the judge's opinion in the Dover School Board trial... that explains the issue quite nicely. (http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site515/2005/1220/20051220_085143_kitzdecision.pdf)


If people want to introduce 'Intelligent Design' into the curriculum of our public schools, that is OK... in a elective 'Comparative Religion' class. But NOT in a science class; that would be a travesty.

Answer 6

It astonishes me! This just the latest incarnation of the Genesis creation-creationism-creation science (what a supreme oxymoron) routine. The payoff is to try to have Bible myths that are thinly-disguised as science taught in public schools and get around the First Amendment that forbids a state religion. Preachers must always be on guard, lest some people become wiser and reject religious nonsense, as I did. If everyone knew the truth, priestly conmen would need to find honest jobs.

Answer 7

There's a difference between "supporting" ID and merely being interested in it. ID raises some valid questions for the evolutionist, and the evolutionists have been curiously defensive and emotional about that. So I am interested in the whole thing from a societal point of view.

Also, I could ask why so many people are so ignorant about evolution. Most people who say they subscribe to the theory actually have very little information about it, and they seem to swallow hook, line, and sinker everything that is said by evolutionary scientists. Also quite curious.

Love, Jack.

Answer 8

Intelligent design is carefully crafted so as to be an "intuition pump". That is, ID is built around a set of premises and questions aimed to appeal to our intuitions, to get us to believe that evolution is not possible, and to get us to ignore the large holes in creationism.

It's essentially crafty marketing: Intelligent Design is to understanding of the world as Brittany Spears' navel is to fine music.

Answer 9

I'm still trying to figure out how so many people can go along with "made up" conjecture but called science so that conjecture at least sounds credible.., concerning evolution and the Big Bong - err.., I mean, Bang.

You guys really crack me up. You swallow a camel and strain at a gnat refusing to believe for one minute that there is a superior being (God) who exists on scale intellectual men can not fathom, who's technology is beyond the scope of mankind's understanding. NOW THAT is backward thinking.

Intelligent Design is the most advanced point of view. Sorry - but you're Jethro - we are Einstein. See ya later Hayseed.

Answer 10

Actually, if you look at both Evolution, and Creationism (intelligent design, as you say), with a mind open equally to both, you will find that it takes more faith to belive in evolution that it does in intelligent design.

I fear you have been tainted by the educational system prevalent in western culture. You fail to see the Bible as a socio-historical-scientific text.

Answer 11

Yeah I know, Esp. people who are wearing digital watches and driving air conditioned cars to workplaces where they have to use a personal computer. You think OK, how come science is OK when you want to use it but not when it is inconvenient for you?
It's not really ignorance but fear. Their religion protects them from changes in society. What other people experience as freedom, they see as chaos. If one line of their Bible was found to be false they think they would have to throw the whole thing away. So this just can't happen.
They don't really like science, they like technology.
I was once trying to nicely get rid of a bible beater who was trying to convert me by saying something like "we're just going to have to agree to disagree". So then he asks me "Do you think I'm insane?" I say "No whatever gave you that idea?" In his way of thinking, There was one way of thinking and every one else had to be crazy. "i have to go now" I said.
That's sort of the way it is for them Black or White. Right or wrong and they, are Right. They have to be.
They live with a great deal of fear, obligation and pressure. Esp. the women. I live in a red state so I know them. I could feel sorry for them if they didn't want to push their religion in the public school.

I tell them, don't pray in school and we won't come to your church and think. Fair enough?