Intelligent Design has Atheists worried?Where can I read more about this?

Question

Blue; Everything about it is dishonest, deceitful, and personally, offensive, as it dishonors not only the noble practice of science but the United States constitution.
Can you give me examples of this?

Blue I am still waiting.

Blue ':This hypothesis is tested experimentally'?
Darwin stated that life began in a warm pond by chance;have they tested this, really?

Who told you that ID is Bible based ?People of other faith and even atheism support ID.

Answer 1

One of the best examples it the book,
"from Goo to you by way of the zoo" it knocks so many holes in "toe" that when the kids start to think for themselves, they laugh at the stupidity of any teacher who tries to push the the trash of evolution. You will quickly come to see it is not about science, but about deception and denial.

The truth will always win in the end.

Answer 2

Let me guess, whoever told you that was not an atheist, right? Then how can he or she speak for any atheist let alone all of them?

Me, I'm not at all worried about the truth of ID. I think it's hokum, pure and simple. What I AM worried about is its proponents, and their seemingly tireless crusade to abolish the fist amendment.

You have to understand, the Intelligent Design movement was FOUNDED by a biblical fundamentalist group, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), whose original (and persisting) goal was to strong-arm public schools into teaching the biblical account of creation in Genesis. As the name suggests, their tack was to fight science with pseudo-science. At the heart of "creation science" is a cabal of top-rate hucksters who would rather con people into submission than to do honest research.

Look at it this way: all "creation science" STARTS with the conclusion! They KNOW what answers their "research" WILL support. This is absolutely the ANTITHESIS of science. Everything about it is dishonest, deceitful, and personally, offensive, as it dishonors not only the noble practice of science but the United States constitution.

If you wish to see what their arguments consist of, then by all means do so, but do so critically, and always look into who is writing it, what affiliations he or she may have, and what biases these affiliations suggest.

EDIT:
I hardly feel obliged to answer such a demonstrative demand. You clearly didn't want any other answers to your question than "I agree with you". It seems like I already gave you a couple examples, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and clarify them:
Its proponents are dishonest because they claim to use the scientific method when in fact they have done an end-run around it: start with the conclusion (Genesis or, at the very least, that God created life essentially as it stands today and evolution is a lie), then build a plausible-sounding theory to feed to the gullible masses around this conclusion and, time-permitting, support it with evidence. Interestingly enough, their "evidence" seems to only be criticisms of the theory (~universally accepted among biologists) that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Intelligent design is not a product of the scientific method, and therefore it can not be called a science.
They are deceitful because they tell the public that the main cause for their concern is scientific, not anything else. Look no further than your local bookstore for a myriad of examples. Here's one:
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-7449748-9741562?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192713678&sr=8-2
This was in the science section at my local Borders. However, that's not because it's science; it's because the publisher told Borders to put it there. Interesting. Also note that Jonathan Wells is a tried and true biblical creationist. He would be the first to tell you so.
Intelligent Design says that "a designer" (God) made everything and evolution is wrong. Let's say it's being taught in biology class in public schools. Let's look at a question on an exam:
Everything in the universe was designed by an intelligent entity (that some call God): True or false.
The answer, of course, would be True. This is the curriculum that would accompany the compulsory teaching of this subject in schools. Now let's look at the first amendment to the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
How many people in the US subscribe to a religion that believes in a creator God and denies evolution? A lot? Sure. All? Definitely not.
A law that would teach students religious dogma in public schools and make them state, with the threat of punishment (failing, or a bad grade, or whatever):
"we were designed (created) by an intelligent entity (God)"
is so CLEARLY a "law respecting an establishment of religion" that I just don't know how to make it any clearer.

A scientific theory starts with an observation of some natural phenomenon. Then an explanation of this phenomenon is hypothesized. This hypothesis is tested experimentally. If it's not a success, then the hypothesis is wrong. If it is a success, then it may be right, but it may be wrong. Additional experimental successes will further support the hypothesis and additional refinements will be made to the hypothesis until it can one day be called a theory...but the theory may still be wrong. It may even make predictions about unobserved events that are later observed, but it may still be wrong. A theory is always disprovable. If it is not disprovable, it is not a theory. Intelligent design is not disprovable, and therefore it is not a scientific theory.

Answer 3

In-depth article - 'Conversation with Nancy Pearcey; Evolution or Intelligent Design?' with Charles Strohmer. In Issue No. 23 of 'Openings' Journal. Go on-line to www.charlesstrohmer.com or email [e-mail] and ask for details.

Answer 4

http://www.arn.org
http://www.idthefuture.com
http://www.discovery.org

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

If Intelligent Design is so stupid, then why are they worried about it being taught next to Neo-Darwinian Evolution? Don't they want kids to see how weak it is next to the "truth"?

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

Answer 5

Maybe it worries athiests but it doesnt worry scientists because all intelligent design claims are simply not science. The claims are not testable, they are nothing more than speculation and intelligent design claims have been refuted and disproved by reputable scientists using the scientific method.

Intelligent design cannot produce one repeatable experiment to support its claims. Indeed they are nothing more than claims. They cannot even be termed a theory.

See section C1 of this website to see how Intelligent design claims have been debunked. Note the sections regarding Intelligent design being mainstream and appearing in peer reviewed journals. That should show you just how "worried" the scientific community is!!!!

You are living a pipe dream.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Answer 6

it doesnt. ID has been blown out of the water as far as anything can be disproven. There is a .000000009% chance that it is correct but that is roughly the same chance as me being emporer blesdfsaa from the planet gggdsksiss

Answer 7

i think atheists don't care, generally speaking. "intelligent design" is just the same old creationism that atheists have dismissed for decades, dressed up to look all modern and sciency. who do they think they're fooling? it's certainly not atheists. some scientists and supporters of science, theist and atheist alike however are worried that ID seeks to circumvent the scientific process and claim victory for its meritless ideas in the court of public opinion.

Answer 8

as an ex-creationist i can only laugh at this statement that.
'Intelligent Design has Atheists worried"

evolution is based on science and fact, ID is religious mumbo jumbo.

creationists use half truths, misquotes (darwins supposed problem with eye evolution comes to mind) propaganda, misinformation (evolution relies only on chance sounds familiar) and flat out lies.

are we worried hell yes, were worried that creationists havent taken their meds.

Answer 9

It doesn't! It has us angry at such shabby, immoral tactics for sneaking creationism into the classroom, but not worried as it is so easily shown to be a load of nonsense!

Go to the No Answers In Genesis website for very thorough coverage of the issue.

Answer 10

A re-marketed form of Creationism to counter the US (not global) Court's ruling about Religion in Schools?

Why would I be afraid? I've got a brain, I have a memory, I'm not stupid

.