• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much do atheists know about intelligent design?

Abe_the_Man

Thinker
Abe_the_Man
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
205
I'm just wondering how much atheists actually understand the "theory" of intelligent design? I was under the impression that intelligent design was the idea that an "Intelligent designer" laid out a plan for the universe before it's creation. Basically this designer decided how the big bang would happen. How where and when planets and stars would form. What pre-biological components would combine to create life. And set the parameters of evolution.

Basically I was under the impression that intelligent design agreed with evolution, cosmology and all our other scientific fields (I mean it is a "science" right?) but supposed that a creator had set the universe on it's exact course. Basically ID is moot. So I didn't have that much of a problem with it. I thought it was inappropriate to try and teach as science, mostly because it was worthless except as a mental exercise (and not a very vigorous one at that) while dragging science dangerously close to those theological questions.

Then I watched the Nova program "Judgment Day: Intelligent design on trial". I was absolutely FLABBERGASTED (i don't use that word lightly!) when I found out what ID is really about. It supposes that things are too complex to have evolved on their own and therefore they just "appeared spontaneously, fully formed". That's just insane! That means the kangaroos are hopping around happily in prehistoric Australia when suddenly 'POP' platypuses all over the place. And one day 'POOF' humans in Africa!

Not only is ID just a downright dumb idea it completely removes the wonder and majesty from the universe by dumbing it way down to "God did it!"

So I wonder how many evolutionists actually understand how mind bogglingly ridiculous ID is? If I didn't realize it perhaps others don't fully understand the ID "theory"?
 
Sure, I guess if you knew absolutely nothing about it, you might legitimately assume ID was something other than simply another name for creationism. After all, it has "intelligent" right there in the name. Since my introduction to the term was in a news story which made it clear that this was being touted as an alternative to evolution, I never went through that naive phase. I'd guess most people didn't hear about ID as an empty label, but probably heard about it in some context like I did.
 
If you scratch the paint off an IDer, you'll find a creationist. Despite their protestations to the contrary, they're one and the same.

Steve S.
 
How much do atheists know about intelligent design?

I don't know, but I would wager that the regulars on this forum (atheist or otherwise) know far more about it than the general population (atheist or otherwise).
 
The first I had heard about ID was in my freshman college class "Evolution and Extinction". Our prof started off the class by briefly explaining the basics of evolution and the current issues surrounding it. She mentioned how ID was, to paraphrase her, a load of nonsense. She didn't explain what it was yet, since it was only the first day. So I looked it up, and basically was like "wtf? do people actually believe this?". Evolution always seemed like a no-brainer to me, and I couldn't imagine why people would be offended by it.
 
The first I heard of "evolution," it was in association with "sin." It took me a good 20 years before I got over it.

I think most of America doesn't know much about either side of this, and goes with the "middle ground" of "Evolution happened, God directed it." It's the Catholic way.
 
I first heard about ID about 8-10 years ago I should think. A friend of mine had downloaded a whole slew of science shows, which we enjoyed to watch together. One of them explained the basic ideas of Intelligent Design, mainly with the help of the Bacterical Flagellum. It seemed to be a rather serious program with nice graphics and all, and it didn't mention god even once. But it was pretty clear what it meant to imply, and I was highly suspicious about the show. Even though I was certainly no expert in evolution, I knew enough that big red warning lights went off at watching that. Me and my friend came to the conclusion that it must be some kind of hoax (the show in itself that is) since we realized it couldn't be real science.

Well, some years later I learned that there is a lot of people behind the Intelligent Design-thingy, that they claim it is real science, and that they are working to get it introduced in USA schools as a science subject. Around the same time I learned about creationism (another thing I hadn't heard of then, and thought could not exist to such an extent in a Western society) and that ID was trying to be the "respectable cousin" of creationism.

Then I was flabbergasted. :boggled:

I both thank and curse the Internet for letting me find out about such things. Now, I am no longer surprised and am cynically waiting for it to reach Sweden. I am sure there are already people here believing in things like that, there is everywhere. But so far this is not something that people in general seem to know about, or think important to consider, and there's no debate about it at all in the media. Real science isn't challenged by it here in any way that could be said to be a threat, and there are no groups working actively with an agenda like that. There's no demands to push it into the schools, etc etc... At least not that I know of at the moment.
 
Last edited:
ID is not a scientific theory - it is essentially Young Earth Creationsim with the word God crossed out, and was/is being used by YECs as an attempt to shoehorn Creationism into science classrooms. I think the Dover trial certainly provides a bit of evidence towards that.

Norm
 
Every argument I have seen in support of ID is based on either:

Intellectual dishonesty - refusal to consider the facts that conflict with ID. Also known as deliberate ignorance.

Factual dishonesty - outright lying.

Not much there when you take a close look.
 
I'm an atheist and know plenty about intelligent design, thanks ;)

It's basically the art of pointing at some particular feature and saying "Look, that's really complex, so Goddidit". They then claim to have won until real scientists go and do hard work to find out how it evolved (cf. flagellum).

They then choose a different part, and the process continues ad infinitum.

ID mainly relies on a highly flawed concept (irreducible complexity) which is completely undermined by loss of function, and some incredibly dubious maths by Dembski that abuses the No Free Lunch Theorems.

Also, as mentioned, basically all ID supporters are simply Creationists that have been forced to change the name of their `theory' to avoid the outcomes of various court cases. The trick is to ask how old the Earth is - they'll tend to cough and splutter and be neutral on the subject, as most of them would tend towards 6000 years. Alternatively, ask them if we share a common ancestor with apes.

Although ID is, hypothetically, not in opposition with current scientific evidence (albeit still vacuous and a god-of-the-gaps argument), the proponents do tend to be strongly anti-science.
 
I would expect that a large majority of evolutionists do know how that the ID Theroy is quite silly.
 
ID is more of an anti-theory than a theory anyway. It doesn't really present its own explanation of the origin of man. Instead, it mostly occupies itself with taking pot shots at evolution, trying to find something which is not adequately explained by the theory of evolution. The proponents of ID are generally quite willing to lie and distort the facts in the service of their agenda. The goal seems to be simply to give people a reason to disbelieve evolution, confident that the fallback belief (in the United States, at least) will be the Genesis account.
 
I think it's an interesting question, but one that will not be well answered here, simply because so many people on this forum are well enough informed about what ID really is. I suspect that among the general population there may well be many who are not so aware of just how pernicious and anti-scientific ID is. We need to keep hammering on it.
 
bruto said:
I think it's an interesting question, but one that will not be well answered here, simply because so many people on this forum are well enough informed about what ID really is. I suspect that among the general population there may well be many who are not so aware of just how pernicious and anti-scientific ID is. We need to keep hammering on it.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. I think the reason I didn't really know anything about ID was because it's essentially a non-issue in Canada. I've never seen it mentioned on the news and I don't know anyone who believes it (at least no one who has admitted they do) though maybe I'm sheltered. I do know 1 person who is very religious and is always talking about creation scientists. He is a friend of my brothers and my brother has been able to hilariously debunk all of his ideas using "Junior Skeptics" found in the back of one of his skeptic magazines (they are both in their twenties).

I also agree that ID is not actually a "theory" (that's why I have been putting it in quotes) and merely and anti-theory. They have no science and no evidence. It is based on "evolution is wrong" not "ID is correct".
 
Abe_the_Man said:
Then I watched the Nova program "Judgment Day: Intelligent design on trial". I was absolutely FLABBERGASTED (i don't use that word lightly!) when I found out what ID is really about. It supposes that things are too complex to have evolved on their own and therefore they just "appeared spontaneously, fully formed". That's just insane! That means the kangaroos are hopping around happily in prehistoric Australia when suddenly 'POP' platypuses all over the place. And one day 'POOF' humans in Africa!
Click to expand...

You want to be really flabbergasted, try reading the Wedge Document that spells out the aim of the Discovery Institute.
 
I learned a lot about Intelligent Design in a college seminar which studied the history of the intersections and debates surrounding science and religion. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover ASD trial was a fascinating test case of the fact that Intelligent design is no different than creationism, and is a religious rather than a scientific theory.

Edited to add: Note that in the case of the Dover ASD, science teachers would be required to read a statement recommending the book Of Pandas and People to their students. It was successfully shown in court that the first edition of Of Pandas and People included wording about creationism and a Creator - in later editions this wording was changed to "Intelligent Design" and "Intelligent Agency", with little change in any other content.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
My first exposure to the ID thing was an interview on NPR's Science Friday with one of the promoters; and it was in the context not of biology but cosmology.

Essentially the old "anthropic principal" argument; the universe is so "tuned" to the formation of life that it must have been designed that way. In this context, the proponents maintain that the universe could have turned out in what's essentially an infinite number of ways, but we have a universe wherin stars and planets could form, complex molecules could form, etc.
Of course, the ID guys have never shown that the Universal Constants could be different....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom