How many christians support teaching intelligent design?
820895
The theory of intelligent design is the same as when the ancient celts said "mushroom circles form because of fairies". Infact their is no evidence of intelligent design at all. Creationist Science is completely non empirical and a total insult to real science. Its either the earth is a giant labratory of differrent combinations of rna that is billions of years old and the universe started with the culmination of a big bang that was created by what quantum physics calls "the quantum bounce effect" or a black hole creating a baby universe. Or... some giant mythological being created a man and a woman from clay in a magic garden 4000 years ago. Thousands of years ago people did not have science and the world was a big and scary place, they were at the mercy of the elements so they used Gods and Goddesses to humanize the world around them. Sooner or later that developed into monothiesm. Then the early christians stole their creator diety from the Hebrew people. Talk about copywriting. However even though their is tons of real evidence backing up the anthropic principle. Millions of people are very primitive and need a diety otherwise their world view is incomplete.
1005527
I don't see how you can think that the intelligent design theory states that God designed people to evolve. If anything, it says the opposite. If anything, intelligent design is creationism cloaked in scientific terminology, and to say the least, it's faulty science! Proponents of creationism and intelligent design basically try to use science to back up their preconceived notions, and to say the least, this is irresponsible and not conducive to uncovering the truth. And not only that, but despite what many would like to believe, there IS evidence that Darwin's theory is correct. After all, there are more genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees than there are between Asian and African elephants. And not only that, but a fossil of a long-extinct fish was discovered some time ago, and it was shown that its fins were in the process of evolving into limbs. Plus, the fossil of a dog-like creature that eventually evolved into the whale has been found. The evidence is everywhere!
937963
Antony Flew said that "Intelligent Design" lead him to the belief in the existence of God, but that he still does not believe in Christianity. \nThis happen a year or two ago. You might find something by searching "Gary Habermas, intelligent design, Tony Flew." \nI think http://www.str.org and http://www.reasons.org had the info posted on their web sites.
127020
Popular opinion on these matters tend to be cyclical.  It's on a conservative swing right now, but it'll go back.  I don't see it as a threat to the scientific community as the people who don't believe in evolution wouldn't be scientists anyway.  However, I don't think it bodes well for the general poplation that they are more inclined to accept religious dogma than actually consider the evidence in front of them.\n\nI'm a little suspicious of the statistics you quoted.  While I don't doubt that more people believe in the virgin brith than evolution, the numbers seem a bit extreme.  I think further inquiry into the methodology of the study may be warrented...\n_____________\nBowser, while evolution has not been conclusively proven, there is a proponderance of evidence to support it, and none to suggest it does not occur.  There is, however, no reliable evidence to support "intelligent design."
223475
All the "popular" figures behind Intellegent Design (aka ID) like Hovind and Mr. BeHe, Have iffy science credentials to talk about their fields.\n\nHovind uses many of the worst "arguments" to prove his points that one can possibly use. \n\nPhrases like "Evolution is just a theory". "There is great debate about evolution in the scientific community" etc.\n\nAll in all, while smaller aspects of evolution ARE under debate, the over arching "Theory" of evolution, within the proper scientific communities may as well be the "Law of Evolution". \n\nNow to the REAL meat of the question. Does the standard christian belive what he says? Thats tricky. I have plenty of christian friends and family from all over the spectrum, so i can put it down in the following terms:\n\nGroup A: "Christianity and evolution cannot co-exist. Kent Hovinds teachings are great. Science is out to get religon"\n\nGroup B: "Christianity and evolution work together. Kent Hovind is silly. Science has nothing to do with relgion."\n\nNow the flaw with group a, is that they percive that science is this demon out to destroy their way of life by disproving god. (something which science doesnt even deal with). Some take this 'war' with science farther then it shold be take and start ignoring some other basic facts.\n\nGroup B is commonly associated with the scientsists themselves as well as the better read people in sociaty.\n\nI`d say, of the 80% of america that considers themselves christian, its probably close to even 50/50 between both group a and b. Group A just happens to be much more vocal.
669746
While it's certainly nice to want to embrace some of the tenets of Christianity the cost of actually believing is far too great.\n\nI could never put aside my belief in reason and embrace intolerance just because some book has levied a threat against disbelief.\n\nEvolution is undeniable. We see it at work every day. Dog breeds, anti-biotic resistant strains of germs are both evidence in favor of evolution. I know, I know microevolution versus macroevolution. However, seeing it in any capacity lends credence to the greater argument. \n\nOur knowledge base is still in its infancy. Six-hundred years ago the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Now we know better. What will we discover in the next six-hundred years?
432686
The "intelligent design" bandwagon is rolling towards the UK too!\n\nIn direct contrast to the US, we have compulsory school prayer and compulsory religious education, which is probably why we have one of the lowest rates of church going in Christendom (much lower than the US)!\n\nGiven that we have religious education as a school subject compulsory for all students, it seems pretty obvious to me that religious creation myths should be taught in religious education and evolution should be taught in science.  To mix the two would be to confuse the nature of science and religion (the "how" and the "why").\n\nIn the US, you don't have religious education taught in schools, and I think this is why you have more of a problem.  Not teaching children about religion leaves a great many things unexplained!
879038
you should believe in intelligent design because if you think about it, the chances that the world and all of the diverse animal and plant life just "happened" are sooooooooo slim, it's pretty much impossible. an interesting book on the subject is "the evolution of a creationist". very fascinating...\n\nanother thing to think about- how can something come from nothing? scientists have tried to make something from nothing, and they have been unsuccessful.
213866
Ok. I will take a stab at this one, but a few more details might be helpful if you have specific scientific evidence you wish to be included in with my answer.\n\nFrancis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry. \n\nToday's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility. \n\nTruth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation. \n\nThe reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way: \n\nThe bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum. \nThe God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27) \nWould this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us? \nBelief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.\n\nThere is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientifi
480974
I wouldn't make a fuss about it.Parents influence their kids when it comes to religion.No matter what the teacher says,the child usually believes their parents anyway.I heard one kid say "I don't believe in Evolution because my mamma told me it was false".However the child must understand that he doesn't have to  believe the theories,but he must still learn them.\n\nJust let it go.He was a substitute.The only time you should report him is if he dimisses facts and evidence that he is suppose to teach.His thoughts of them doesn't matter as long as he teaches his lessons.He only gave his opinion.It's not like he made a quiz based on what he said.\n \n\nedit: \n \nAnd I disagree that God made animals as food just for us.Animals eat each other for food and to some animals we are food for them.Every living creature is food for another creature.Humans don't only eat other animals.Other animals were around before we even came along.If  the Specie who was the top of the food chain at the time had our intelligence,they would have thought that God made animals as food just for them also.\n\n Evolution is not taught as fact,but as a theory that is supported by evidence.Creationism doesn't have any evidence to support it;that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class.\n\nChristians always criticize the evolutionary theory as if the story of creation has better evidence to support it.Life and earth is not evidence.Anyone could have made a story of how life and earth came about after the fact.\n\nAnd they should not prohibit the teaching of evolution in school.It is taught as a theory that is supported by scientific evidence.There are many scientific theories.Should they be omitted also? No.It's science.Science isn't always about proving something absolutely true.It is also about finding evidence and coming up with a theory.A theory isn't a theory unless it has evidence to support it.
499798
Yes, but not with the intention of forwarding the cause of any religion in particular.  It is important to understand the backgrounds of people around the world, because in the US the people from around the world live in our neighborhoods.  I'm all for broadening the views of our society.  I do not, however, favor the teaching of things like Creationism in science classes.  I think that if religion is to be taught it should be taught in the context of religious history.
30176
The main reason is that intelligent design is not based on science and not accepted by the scientific community. Moreover, it is actually religious teaching disguised as if it were science, and it is clear that teaching religion is unconstitutional.
144697
Christians should be teaching by example.  Their lives and the way they live it is the best teacher you can have.  If someone is discussing or ask a question I will answer.  But I DO NOT push.  If they are not interested then you are not the person to teach them.  Someone will come along that is the right person at the right time that has been chosen by God.
1070495
I'm a Christian, and I know Evolution is working. I do disagree with Darwin's hypothesis that people should compete for survival within our own species. That is anti-christ. Survival of the fittest is for the natural world. Christians are not natural. Christians are inspired with a spirit, foreign to all other species. That Holy spirit spawns behavior such as; Charity, Passive Civil Disobedience, Art, Music, and anything creative.\n\nHave you heard that we are in this world, but not of it? If you believe that is true, then you are closer to Christ, than Darwin.
376023
I think the Catholic Church doesn't like divorce but never asked America to ban divorce.\n\nI think this should be the model.  Government exists to protect people's different religions. \n\nWhen someone says I am going to consider my religious believes when they run for something, I am all for it.\nIts not a violation.\n\nWhen a person wants creationism taught in a science class in a public school, this is I think a violation of church and state, and recent court cases seem to think it unconstititional to teach creationism in science class.\n\nI think Jesus and creationism should be taught in something called comparative religion, maybe it should only be an elective, but we need to be able to present the option for people to learn to become culturally literate if they desire.\n\nThats just how I feel.
51485
I've already answered a similar question. \nI could say that many people don't know enough of the living world that surrounds them; that could be blamed on education, personal interest, or whatever. \nBut ultimately it is about the time and effort that it takes to learn, understand, question, doubt, and find out if the "truth" that they're selling you is anything like what really happens. \nI think faith is absolutely respectable. I know that most of the times it helps people cope with life in a better way. But it's not science; and scientists object when someone tries to pass it as such (intelligent design and so forth). Belief is dogmatic; you believe that there is a god who created everything because you do. From that point you can use whatever observations you make to support your viewpoint (only think of the many interpretations that have been derived from the Bible - shudder- ).\nSometimes it may seem that scientists are also trying to sell dogmatic ideas, but that's because usually one is compelled to provide statements that are shorter and simpler than what we know or think. \nThat's why I started saying that it takes more effort and more thinking. If you study, if you learn and really observe the natural world, you can't help but seeing the links of similarity that connect all of us. \nIt is each person's choice.
247028
As a teacher i believe that evolution is the only way that we can teach creatioin of man on earth because it is the only theory that we can offer proof of.  Also with the cultural melting pot that America is, teaching only the christian belief of creation would alienate many of the foreign students in America who just do not believe in the same things.  I feel that anything that is based on belief or faith does not have a place to be taught in public schools... it is the job of the parent or guardian to instill thoses beliefs and faith in their child, not the teacher.