What is the most important quality that an "Intelligent Design Scientist" should possess?

Answer 1

In decreasing order of importance:

1. Dishonesty - so they can bait-and-switch their way onto school boards without the voters figuring out their true agenda.

2. Low intelligence - otherwise they would eventually be able to figure out on their own that absence of proof (of a natural cause, down to the molecular level, for example) does not constitute proof of absence.

3. Powerful mental defenses (aka faith) - otherwise they might eventually be taught by others that absence of prove does not constitute proof of absence.

4. Early childhood religious indoctrination - This is last because, given 2 and 3, this is not absolutely essential, but it sure helps.

Answer 2

Enough guts to go against the mainstream.

The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat; did that make it flat? The majority of doctors used to think they didn’t need to wash their hands before an operation; did that save the people they were infecting? And on and on... Those who discovered the truth and tried to teach differently were soundly rejected by their colleagues. And as it has been said, “The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

As Dr. Ross Olson said, “Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions. Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.”

So much of it is academic peer pressure; it’s not wanting to be different. We are so indoctrinated in molecules-to-man evolution, and many people are intimidated (e.g. Ben Stein's new movie).

Secular scientists are fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, and like every human, they hate to be criticized and are subject to bias and preconceived ideas, and they don’t want to lose their grant money.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who don’t know everything and who were not there. And history shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised. Often, the bold pronouncements of secular scientists are contradicted years or even months later.

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

From what I have seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Answer 3

The ability to take the idea that Jesus/non-denominational nameless entity created the Earth....and spend an entire week's worth of classtime teaching about it while trying to convince them the students that they are actually learning a scientific "theory" (that honestly deserves many more sets of air quotes than that, but I don't have the time). They must be a scientist, a preacher, and a brilliant con-artist all in one...

Answer 4

I think there are two traits:

1) No preconception of who the "intelligent designer" might be - if strong scientific evidence shows the ID's might be aliens, they have to be willing to go with that

2) The ability to admit they're wrong if all their theories eventually prove unfounded

)O(

Answer 5

How to now interpret the God Yahweh's advanced scientific knowledge which has been written in what books we now call The Bible and Torah. And also can be found written in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Which I have learned how to interpret.

Answer 6

The ability to put such an amazing spin on reality that it becomes confusing and unrecognizable... while collecting money from the dazed and confused. I believe that amounts to a complete lack of conscience...

Answer 7

this way of excellent form of folk presently are puzzling biblical creationism with smart layout. "smart layout is the learn of varieties in nature that are maximum suitable defined through fact the effects of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). it somewhat is it; it says no longer something of who the author is and how he/she/it/they did it. smart layout encompasses each and every "introduction" tale, even extraterrestrial beings seeding existence on earth. maximum Christians i know do no longer % biblical creationism taught in technological know-how training. What we % is for molecules-to-guy evolution to check with all its warts (they don't seem to be even allowed to recent information that would positioned evolution in a unfavorable mild). And we % smart layout to a minimum of to be provided. in comparison to leprechauns and a flat earth, and so on., an important proportion of the (tax paying) inhabitants believes in identity.

Answer 8

Um... the ability to ignore scientific evidence in favor of primitive superstition and yet still call himself a "scientist"...?

Answer 9

Intellectual Laziness. Real scientists have to do work. ID "scientists" just go around asking stupid question.

Answer 10

The ability to filter out real science

And the ability to collect checks from Churches. Shouldn't those donations be going to charity?