Are there any anthropologists or biologists that believe in intelligent design or creationism?

Question

I was just reading a hilarious bible site that insited the mass of evidence meant ID was about to be rolled out in science classes the world over.

Couldn't fit in the word 'reputable'.

I found some!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli.html

For the love of Dawkins... For the thousandth time, the majority of living scientists are atheists. Look it up.

Questioner, it's a fallacy that most people believed the world was flat, lots of classical and medieval maps depict a globe.

I don't put my 'faith' in anything, I'm not religious. I came to the conclusion (after years of Catholic bible stuff from my Granparents) that creationism is BS because I read a lot of science stuff, and I study the myths of ancient cultures like the Sumerians. Once you do that, you realise just how derivative Christianity and Islam are of earlier myths.

Answer 1

Your link only has four academic endorsement. There are many many more from PhD's (that means reputable, doesn't it?) for the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster than there are for ID. That means the FSM is more credible, doesn't it?

Answer 2

Only the ones that attended Bob Jones University.

Worthwhile and reputable anthropologists and biologists don't consider ID and Creationism as anything more than an idiotic plot from idiotic people to try to shove their religion down the throats of the unwilling public, and to infest our schools with their ridiculous diatribe. The best creationists could ever hope for insofar as getting their silliness in our schools is in a mythology and folklore class.

Creationism and ID is nothing more than a pseudo-science. There's more evidence for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster than there is for Creationism and ID. No significant and reputable biologist or anthropologist would even consider Creationism or ID as even remotely possible because of it's remarkable lack of evidence.


In my opinion, it would be impossible to believe in Creationism and ID and be successful in the fields of biology and anthropology. There is simply no common ground.

Answer 3

There are some who don`t reject the idea of Intelligent Design because they cannot disprove the theory a 100%. But there are no reputable scientists other than the theologist that believe in creationism since that would mean the earth is not older than 6000 years and all of the forensic evidence is fake. No one would go that far.

Answer 4

There are a handful. By far, the majority of serious scientists do not accept ID or Creationism as science. This has been tried in court, and the federal court has found that ID (and Creationism) is not a science.

Answer 5

As a scientist that is deeply spiritual, I see that ID is nothing more than junk science. Creation can not be scientifically proven however it will be through combining the scientific studies of astrophysics, cosmology and cognitive psychology that the existence of non-physical realms (alternative dimensions) of experience will be shown to be real.

Answer 6

Oh Mathilda... save your soul and watch this PBS special

Oh lord... save me from these satanic pagans that wish to denigrate you before mine eyes!

I just saw a PBS special called "Judgment Day, intelligent design on trial" (watch it here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html ). My lord, that "activist judge" had the gall not only to call the good christians trying to implement ID into the school curriculum, Liars!!! but also to call ID a fraud!

Of course, that "liberal activist judge" is really a church going right wing conservative christian, recommended by Rick Santorum, endorsed by tom ridge, and appointed by george W. bush...

Can there be a more holy trinity then the three wise men; bush santorum and ridge????? No there isn't

And the intellectual giant behind ID, Dr. Behe, claimed that under his definition of "science" that astrology would qualify as science!!!! (And why not, since we should be teaching the controversy between Chemistry and alchemy anyway right)

Say it ain’t so baby Joe…. Please all good christians please watch this film and tell me how I misunderstood it’s message….

And also watch (if you dare) that evil christian scientist Dr. Ken Miller sing the praises of Evolution to the resounding applause of unsuspecting students of a christian college!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Answer 7

There are but despite the fact that evolutionary THEORY can't be proven, since it's "evidence" can only be interpreted not proven, they are discredited for the same basic reason. Also it depends on how good one Bible knowledge is when they talk about Creationism. I personally (and obviously ;-)) find it hard to believe that so many billions - trillions - of coincidences brought the universe to where it is today.

Answer 8

Yes While many of the proponents of Intelligent Design are biological scientists like biochemists and biophysists or physical scientists like geologists there are reputable anthropologists who support ID. Among them Paleoanthropology professor David Phillips who hlids degrees with highest honors from California State University of Northridge.

For further info on scientists who support ID please see www.icr.org/research/index/research-sci_faq This is of course not a complete list of supporters but it will give you a picture of the accademic credentials of some of thise who support ID and different sciences represented.

Answer 9

There are a few, but not many. I'd guess that most of those tend to believe that God worked through evolution to create. In the case of ID, I doubt that any scientist can accept it as anything but an unsupported hypothesis.

Answer 10

Accepting Evolution concept as being a certainty demands blind faith too... Professor Edwin Conklin suggested, "The danger of existence originating from twist of destiny is such as the prospect of the Unabridged Dictionary as a results of an explosion in a printing keep." The sparkling spots on evolutionary "tree" charts happen at purely the standards the place, in accordance to Darwin's concept, the crucial differences had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the main orders: primates, carnivores, and so on are thoroughly lacking. there is not any fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, to illustrate. "contemporary gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "they're right here at present; they have not have been given any the former day." the comparable is actual of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; all of them purely burst upon the scene de novo [anew], because it have been. "technological know-how now knows that lots of the pillars of Darwinian concept are the two fake or deceptive. yet biology texts proceed to present day them as authentic evidence of evolution. What does this propose approximately their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and cellular Biology from the college of California at Berkeley, and one in religious study from Yale college. Has worked as a postdoctoral study biologist on the college of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a scientific laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State college in Hayward.)[eighty one]