Why do religious people still cling to intelligent design?

Question

It's been thoroughly debunked and even failed to present a good case to be considered science, yet many religious people still believe that it is a viable contender among origins studies.

Answer 1

They are terrified at the idea man may be a free agent, responsible for his own moral development.

Answer 2

Mainly because a religions, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Islam, or even pagan, at accepts a supreme being of creating the universe does answer the age old question of the universe:
WHICH CAME FIRST THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

Where the athesit religious environmentalist who practice the religion of environmentalism have yet been able to come up with an answer to the age old question of the universe:
WHICH CAME FIRST THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?.

The big problem is the time frame: You have to get the notion of the six days being six solar days as we know it out of you head first and for most. And start thinking it terms of the six days being six days in God's time.
You do that you will find both the environmentalist and fundamentalis both wrong as to how old the earth is.
It is going to be a lot older than either the environmentalist or fundamentalist say it is by several billion years.
If you look in the Bible you will get some clues as to how old the world really is:
The Bible states that a man's alotted time is 65 years.
Then in one of the Sermons in the new testiment Christ states that a man's life span is put a twinking in his father's eye.
light travels at 300 x 10^6 meters per second. But light to travel to the rear of the eye and back is about 1/4 of a inch or 0.00635 meters.
So a man's life span on earth is going to equal to only roughly around 2.12x10^-11 of a second in God's time.
Now figure out how long a day in God's time is equal to and mutliply that by six.
Now if you look in the 6th chapter first book of the Old Testament, you will find where it is written that the creatures crawled out of the ocean onto dry land.
Now the religiously Environemtalist say the Bible it dead wrong correct? They say life stated in the sea and the creatures evolved and moved onto the land correct?

Well think about this if the Bible is dead wrong then they are dead wrong because they are saying the same thing the Old Testament says about creatures evolving in the sea and evidently crawling onto the land. So since they are saying the same thing and the Bible is wrong then they are wrong.

Now either they are both right or they are both wrong which is it ?
I tend to think they are both right in the facts. They just have their calenders all screwed up.
Interesting some of the concepts you can find once you get over the notion of it being solar days and start thinking of it being days in terms God's time.
Here is a hint if you decide to start playing with it. You are going to have to fall back to your Post Versia Log slide rule because neither calculators nor most computers will handle such large numbers.

Answer 3

yet more evidence they discard out of hand because it contradicts their religious programming.......


A common argument used by theists to support their belief in God, is that life is so complicated that it could have only been made by God. Often this is accompanied with the assertion that there is a "vital force" that separates inanimate objects from living things, and that God is the source of this "vital force". This philosophy, called "vitalism", has now been totally discredited. The following research report in the highly respected peer-reviewed journal Science details the de novo creation of a complete functional virus from synthetic chemicals.

Some people will probably say that a virus is not a living thing, but that all depends on how you define life. Clearly a simple virus is not as complex as a mammal, but it does have much more properties associated with living things than properties associated with inanimate objects. For example viruses reproduce, evolve, contain genetic information, and have a life cycle. These are characteristics in common with a pet dog, not a pet rock.

Even today, the study of chemistry is divided into "organic" and "inorganic" chemistry. This is a throwback to an era when it was believed that only living things could create the carbon bonds that define the difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. This has been discredited in 1828, when Wöhler synthesized urea. The year 2002 marks another milestone in science, with man's first creation of a virus, a living thing, from nonliving material...

Even with all the evidence before them creationists still "believe" the Earth is only 6000 yrs old and was made in 7 days....

Answer 4

I can't believe some people still think intelligent design is more believable than it all happening by chance! It is just mind-boggling! You mean to say you find it more likely that a God created the world. God? The name doesn't mean anything to me. It's common sense, the only reason people believe so whole heartedly in God comes down to fear and naive hope for the impossible. If there is a God, I can honestly say I would not care to be his follower, for he does not deserve it. So many terrible things have been done in the name of God, and so few Christians actually follow a healthy lifestyle in terms of their reactions to people who are different to them, and their treatment to the minorities. If you drop a coin once, it will fall. If you drop it again, it will still fall. Then a third time. If you got ten million Christians to pray for the coin not to fall, it will still fall. That's one of the most accurate things I have heard in my life. Why do religious people still cling to intelligent design? Because they simply don't want to accept an end to life, when it's far easier to live in denial.

Answer 5

It died miserably in Kitzmiller v. Dover, despite having every advantage -- the opponents had the burden of proof and the judge was a Bush-appointed Christian.

In the trial, evolution (including common descent of humans and other apes) was found to be science and ID failed all tests as science.

Further, the Creationists ("cdesign proponentsists" being the transitional form) were found to be sufficiently dishonest that perjury charges were narrowly missed and the judge received death threats in the aftermath. Clearly, ID is not only wrong, but its proponents are immoral.

Answer 6

ok, you know that it has been debunked- tell me how? I have never had an explanation as why people think that we are not created- what is so wrong with believing, we were created in the image of God instead of something that evolved over the years? That really has not been proven either. The reason I think some choose to try and say that creationism is wrong, is because if they really realized that it was true, they would have to admit that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. It is not a viable for the way we came into existence, IT IS THE WAY.

Answer 7

LindaJ: wow, real original, take christians and replace it with atheist, how long did it take you to come up with that brilliant answer.......


777:"see how easy it is to fool some people into believing something has been debunked, some of us still think for ourselves and don't just swallow what some scientist tell us is truth."

yet you do the exact same but you replace scientist with your god. try not to choke on the irony.

Answer 8

Why do athesits still cling to the theory of evolution?
It's been thoroughly debunked and even failed to present a good case to be considered science, yet many athesits still believe that it is a viable contender among origins studies.

Answer 9

Ironically, today the greatest, of the modern scientists proclaims the spiritual to be the most important single fact in life, and the source of all true science.
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
-Albert Einstein-

Answer 10

Unfortunately the debate will never go away, even if the gaps get smaller it is improbable that science can answer all questions regarding the "how". So as long as there are Gaps, The God of gaps argument won't ever go away.

Answer 11

I'm religious (Christian), and do not advocate ID as a plausible scientific theory. I do not support the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Not all religious people believe in it, of course.