"More and more scientists are starting to believe in intelligent design."

[Spungo]

More and more scientists people are becoming stupider.

They were always stupid.

It's both hilarious and sad how there is a complete disconnect between old media and new media. Old people are trying to use the old forms of propaganda, seemingly unaware that people are able to fact check things within seconds. Saying baseless things like "more scientists are considering intelligent design" would be enough to create doubt in the distant past. Today, it just alienates young people because they can tell when someone is lying. Did Obama get sworn in using a koran instead of a bible? 5 second google search, the answer is no.

What's interesting is that this often leads to a disconnect between what the internet thinks and what people offline think. After 9/11, the old media did their best to pin blame on Iraq. The internet never bought into this crap, so there would be opinion polls where an overwhelming majority of people on the internet were against the Iraq war, but opinion polls on Fox or CNN would be more evenly split. Humans tend to self-segregate, so this leads to smarter people going to the internet and podcasts while dumb people watch TV and listen to radio. This is a really bad thing because it means TV and radio stations no longer have anything to lose by playing bullshit propaganda. In 1970 or 1980, that might cause the more intelligent listeners to tune out. Today, the intelligent people are already tuned out, so why not broadcast garbage 24/7?

 

[disappoint]

More and more and more creationists are getting desperate.

 

[Thebobo]

I heard this statement this morning, and I was going to ignore it, but the guy that said it usually has his head on straight, so I have to ask. This isn't true, right? I was pretty sure we'be been moving away from that steadily for a while now.....

If you are going to make a claim like that you need to post a source link.

Also your thread title is absurd as scientist don't hold their theories up as beliefs.

 

[02ranger]

lol, I love how the obvious problem here rests with the op taking anything anyone says at face value, and now instead of addressing that people actually spend time thinking/worrying over the statement that some random poster posted purportedly from some guy he knows. I mean, I know that defeatism is huge on this place (I bet the majority of ATOT bows to Idiocracy), but seriously guys.

lol, I didn't say I believe him, but he does not typically spout off bullshit. Kinda made me wonder if there's some basis for it but I never had a chance to ask him where he got that info. Personally I thought it sounded bogus from the start but there's plenty of other dumb stuff that sounds bogus but isn't. I guess this time he actually was spouting BS.

Thanks everybody for the quick responses. Its no surprise really its creationist propaganda, that's how it sounded. I've only skimmed the other responses so far, but thanks again.

 

[02ranger]

If you are going to make a claim like that you need to post a source link.

I do? He said this to me in person, I don't have a source and I didn't get a chance to ask him.

 

[Ferzerp]

It is an interesting issue, but at the same time you cannot prove or disprove intelligent design.

No, it really isn't an interesting issue, and you have posted exactly why. The whole concept is not a falsifiable claim, and thus of zero value to us in understanding the way the universe works (aka not science).

 

[SP33Demon]

Maybe because as more and more evidence mounts, Darwinian macroevolution has been dead in the water since 2001 (despite our silly attempts to perpetuate it).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
...
Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

When 700 scientists all agree against something, it's dead in the water. Now while they said they weren't FOR intelligent design, they have effectively destroyed its competition (Darwinian macroevolution). As a result, more and more people are getting on-board with Intelligent Design because we simply have no explanation for how we evolved. The fossil record doesn't support it, and we can't support it via DNA theories that have to make huge assumptions to make any sense.

 

[Ruptga]

Maybe because as more and more evidence mounts, Darwinian macroevolution has been dead in the water since 2001 (despite our silly attempts to perpetuate it).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/



When 700 scientists all agree against something, it's dead in the water. Now while they said they weren't FOR intelligent design, they have effectively destroyed its competition (Darwinian macroevolution). As a result, more and more people are getting on-board with Intelligent Design because we simply have no explanation for how we evolved. The fossil record doesn't support it, and we can't support it via DNA theories that have to make huge assumptions to make any sense.

 

[TheSlamma]

More and more Scientologists are starting to believe in intelligent design.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Thebobo]

I do? He said this to me in person, I don't have a source and I didn't get a chance to ask him.

Ahh this is an acquaintance, someone you know, thought you heard about it on TV or on the web.

Well I have a friend who believes the world is 6000 years old (we never talk about it anymore) but we share an interest in aviation. So that what we talk about.

Best to do your own research

 

[SP33Demon]

Aw, somebody was too butthurt to respond. It's ok. Dr. Tour's level of molecular understanding trumps anything you (or 99.9% of these forum members) would have to say on the matter. Come talk to us when you are one of the top 10 most cited chemists in the world.

Macroevolution.is.dead. Intelligent design is gaining steam faster than you'd like to admit, and will continue to gain steam as more and more evidence is revealed that blows Darwinists out of the water.

For example: http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk

Both hypotheses run counter to scenarios in which organisms evolve to be increasingly complex. In one, a complex nervous system and muscles were lost in the sponges. In the other, the sponges had the genetic capability for complex features but stayed simple, while a more primitive group, the comb jellies, acquired brains and muscles that help them chase down prey. Furthermore, the idea that complex parts like a brain and nervous system—including nerve cells, synapses, and neurotransmitter molecules—could evolve separately multiple times perplexes evolutionary biologists because parts are gained one at a time. The chance of the same progression happening twice in separate lineages seems unlikely—or so biologists thought. “Traditional views are based on our dependence on our nervous system,” says Ryan. “We think the nervous system is the greatest thing in the world so how could anything lose it,” he says. “Or, it’s the greatest thing in the world, so how could it happen twice.”

KABOOM. That's the sound of Darwinists' heads exploding. Welcome to 2014, please stay awhile and let's discuss Intelligent Design now that macroevolution is dead.

The bottom line:

When new data suggests a rearrangement, it must be considered no matter how perplexing the conclusion seems.

 

[TheSlamma]

Aw, somebody was too butthurt to respond. It's ok. Dr. Tour's level of molecular understanding trumps anything you (or 99.9% of these forum members) would have to say on the matter. Come talk to us when you are one of the top 10 most cited chemists in the world.

Macroevolution.is.dead. Intelligent design is gaining steam faster than you'd like to admit, and will continue to gain steam as more and more evidence is revealed that blows Darwinists out of the water.

For example: http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk

but yet no evidence still of a supreme being. Disproving a scientific theory doesn't mean the fall back is automatically magical beings and unicorns does it?

 

[Zodiark1593]

This is a pointless arguement as no one currently alive knows for sure whether things evolved by pure chance, or were designed. Unless there is solid, irrefutable proof one way or another, arguments are based solely on belief.

 

[TheSlamma]

This is a pointless arguement as no one currently alive knows for sure whether things evolved by pure chance, or were designed. Unless there is solid, irrefutable proof one way or another, arguments are based solely on belief.

Oh but dude SP33Demon has some web links!

 

[Spungo]

Maybe because as more and more evidence mounts, Darwinian macroevolution has been dead in the water since 2001 (despite our silly attempts to perpetuate it).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

Best troll post of the year :thumbsup:

 

[witeken]

Maybe because as more and more evidence mounts, Darwinian macroevolution has been dead in the water since 2001 (despite our silly attempts to perpetuate it).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/



When 700 scientists all agree against something, it's dead in the water. Now while they said they weren't FOR intelligent design, they have effectively destroyed its competition (Darwinian macroevolution). As a result, more and more people are getting on-board with Intelligent Design because we simply have no explanation for how we evolved. The fossil record doesn't support it, and we can't support it via DNA theories that have to make huge assumptions to make any sense.

Something doesn't become false because some people say it's false. Macroevolution is simply accumulated microevolution.

Short explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1t5_iGN0xE
Long explanation: watch or read Richard Dawkins.

 

[Ruptga]

This is a pointless arguement as no one currently alive knows for sure whether things evolved by pure chance, or were designed. Unless there is solid, irrefutable proof one way or another, arguments are based solely on belief.

While technically true, that's disingenuous. There is an extremely strong consensus (and that's just one convenient example) among the scientific community about modern evolutionary theory, and you can even read how it all works. The only controversies on this topic exist in the minds of uninformed laymen and the willfully ignorant.

Since apologists like SP33Demon already know all the answers trying to dialogue with them is an absolute waste of time.

 

[witeken]

This is a pointless arguement as no one currently alive knows for sure whether things evolved by pure chance, or were designed. Unless there is solid, irrefutable proof one way or another, arguments are based solely on belief.

They are not.

 

[Thebobo]

Macroevolution.is.dead. Intelligent design is gaining steam faster than you'd like to admit, and will continue to gain steam as more and more evidence is revealed that blows Darwinists out of the water.

Problem is you use science to bolster your one idea then throwing it away to support the rest, you cant to that.

Scientist in the absence of another theory or if there is something they don't know don't just automatically say its GOD!

 

[sandorski]

Baseless assertions. Another one I have heard recently is, "Evolution was disproven 50 years ago". No specifics given, just the assertion.

As for "Scientists" accepting ID, these range from Dentists to actual Biologists with everything in between(including Engineers and even those who merely took some Science classes in College/University). The vast majority are not Biologists, which is why the term "Scientists" is used. It's an attempt to appear to be authoritative, but is a deliberate deception.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What church were you in where you heard that?

 

[kranky]

I put more credence in the opinions of scientists with long careers who have changed their minds about theories. In the world of science, that is a dangerous thing to do. People love their theories and you can never change someone else's mind - but sometimes scientists change their own positions.

When someone has spent decades in a field and has become well-respected, and then decides to challenge the status quo and change their previously-held positions, I have a lot of respect for those opinions because it can be a career-limiting move in their business.

Science is a lot like higher education administration - they have their fave theories and if you aren't on board, there's something wrong with you.

 

[glenn1]

"More and more scientists are starting to believe in intelligent design."

Possibly the statement is both true and misleading. Could be due strictly to population growth adding more scientists to the world. Or comparing the growth against a low baseline, "Hey, double the amount of scientists believe in Intelligent Design" (unspoken is the context that it went from 0.001% to 0.002%). The more relevant question is not total absolute numbers, but both what percentage of scientists believe it and the growth rate of that percentage.

 

[Gibsons]

I put more credence in the opinions of scientists with long careers who have changed their minds about theories. In the world of science, that is a dangerous thing to do. People love their theories and you can never change someone else's mind - but sometimes scientists change their own positions.

When someone has spent decades in a field and has become well-respected, and then decides to challenge the status quo and change their previously-held positions, I have a lot of respect for those opinions because it can be a career-limiting move in their business.

Science is a lot like higher education administration - they have their fave theories and if you aren't on board, there's something wrong with you.

Peter Duesberg fan, huh?

 

[RandomWords]

Scientist in the absence of another theory or if there is something they don't know don't just automatically say its GOD!

It's funny - when the statement says scientists are leaning towards ID - that the majority of responders assume that it means 'God' - hell - ID can encompass anything from God to various form of Aliens / Alien life - since it is possible some meteor could have had alien bacteria that just mutated everything... that is just being far fetched as I wonder why people assume ID is always God to each scientist that leans that way... granted - a lot of it is - but still... assumptions.