This is all that’s ever talked about these days. Just wondering what the runner up theory is to these two? Something that has a little weight to it. I put it in GD, just in case, but not really looking for a GD. But these things end up here eventually.
Pastafarianism
Runner up in what sense? ID is not science and it’s not accepted by scientist. It’s creationism dressed up in fancy clothes. I wouldn’t put it above any other crackpot hypothesis that someone throws out there.
In fairness, there are several variations on creationism, flouting the world of fact to varying degrees. The all-at-once, 6000-years-old, hard-Genesis version is the furthest and most easily laughed at. They also are likely to conflate evolution and the Big Bang theory even though they’re unrelated except for being in opposition to Genesis.
There’s also the faction that defines macro- vs. microevolution to come to grips with observed variations within species but repudiates the idea that such variation can create non-interbreedability and therefore new species. The 6000-year-old stuff is also acceptable as metaphor for them, given the wealth of information about geology we have. These people have been able to make part of the connection and can be coaxed along the next step.
You also have the guided-evolution faction, those that accept evolution in its entirety but believe that mutation is not random and selection is not natural but that both are guided by God. Any disagreement you might have with that is theological only; they embrace fact as completely as anyone else.
I may have left out a viewpoint or two, but the point is that second place behind evolution isn’t “creationism” necessarily but one of the variations on a spectrum of creationism. I don’t know of any recent poll data but I’d suspect the hard-core Genesis literalists are not the most numerous of them.
I not placing them in the same category. I could care less what category the theories fall into. I’m just wondering what other ideas are out there that have some pull, but are not releated to the two major ones that are often debated. If there are many “3rds” that have equal weight, I’ll listen to them too. Is there not something a good portion of the world believes in other then Evolution and ID?
“Runner-up” in what way? Evolution is the only scientific theory that describes the current pattern of life on Earth, the fossil record, etc. Intelligent Design is just the latest of many non-scientific, religious ideas that are opposed to evolution; it has no more scientific legitimacy than old-fashioned 4004 BC six-literal-days creationism; indeed, the advocates of ID have pointed out that it’s perfectly compatible with this viewpoint, which no scientific theory could ever be.
Only evolution has any “weight”, or “pull”, or however you want to express it, as a scientific theory. There are as many creation myths as there are religions; all of them are equally unsupported by any scientific evidence. The Norse tale of Ymir the Frost Giant is a nice picturesque one.
If you are talking about what people believe, you might get 1) Creationism, 2) Evolution, 3) ID. I’d be surprised if ID wasn’t a distant 3rd; it’s only being used in the US to combat evolution in the education system.
As long as this discussion is about what people believe. In no way does Creationism or ID have any equal standing with Evolution as a scientific theory, as neither Creationism or ID is scientific.
Short Question: “Intelligent or Stupid…is there another option?”
Short Answer: No.
I should also state that legitimacy is not what I’m looking for. You all mean to tell me that there are only 2 debated ideas (regardless of legitimacy), that people are concerned with? All these people in the world and there’s only the option of A, B, or neither?
Some are confused about what I mean by runner-up. There may be a million ideas and storys out there, but I’m looking for the top 3. Let’s say all the ideas have poker chips…
1st: Evolution with 25,000 chips
2nd: ID with 10,000 chips
3rd: ? with 200 chips
What might it be if there is? 
I think I see what you mean. On this interpretation, the debate is between science and non-science - between A and not-A, rather than A and B.
Well, assessing any sort of religious or scientific idea on the basis of popularity doesn’t seem too sensible. However, let’s take a look at the most popular world faiths (from Wikipedia):
- Roman Catholicism. (Should believe in evolution, according to various Papal pronouncements, although many Catholics accept some form of creationism. Behe himself, one of the most prominent ID advocates, is a Catholic.)
- Islam. (Evolution)
- Atheist/Agnostic. (Evolution)
- Hinduism. (Time is infinite and cyclical. Opposed to evolution.)
Is this any help?
Lamarkian evolution maybe? Some sort of Bergsonian life-force theory?
Seriously, though, there shouldn’t be any other candidate than evolution through natural selection. It’s one of the most well corroborated theories in any branch of science. It’s only controversial because it ofends certain people’s religious sensibilities.
ID has more like 10 chips. Creationism has 50,000 chips, but then again, ID is Creationism. Seperating the two isn’t really all that useful. Pretty much any religious theory is Creationism. From Hindu to Norse to Navajo. Once you’ve said Creationism, you’ve said them all.
Oh, if your “poker chips” don’t refer to numbers of people who support them, but instead to something like the quality of or evidential support for a theory, a more accurate table would be:
- Evolution: 100 chips
- Everything else: zero.
I’m sorry, but even after a couple clarifications, I am not sure:
Are you looking for numbers of adherents?
Are you looking for strength of theory, (based on facts, logic, or some other criteria)?
150 years go, there were several separate Theories of Evolution with those of Darwin/Wallace and those of Lamarck being the two strongest in terms of scientific adherents.
In the ensuing years, especially after Mendel’s genetics experiments were demonstrated to have provided the “engine” for Darwin’s theory, (Wallace having gotten cold feet over the issue of special creation for humans), the neo-Darwinian theory of Natural Selection has become the dominant (and only serious) scientific explanation. There are minor modifications and new proposals to the nooks and crannies of individual applications to the general theory, but there is no “number 2.”
ID is not a scientific theory. Depending on who you read, it may be one of the “nooks and crannies” being filled in to the Theory of Natural Selection (Behe on his more honest–but still error filled–days) or it may be a philosophical rant against science (Johnson), or it my simply be really bad math by someone who fears science (Dembski), but it is not a scientific theory.
If you are simply looking for different beliefs that people hold, you have an entirely separate discussion.
Why not say:
- Science: 100 chips
- Everything else: zero.
I do not believe there is an alternative scientific theory to evolution at this time. Within science, the debate seems to be just how evolution works.
The problem with the debate over Intelligent Design is that few people understand it. It’s neither a scientific theory nor a religious belief; it’s philosophy.
ID is not fundamentally inconsistent with evolution, although a strong belief in the truth of one theory might lead one to certain conclusions incompatible with the other.
(Not necessarily, though: I can image an IntelligentDesignist who believed entirely in evolution but just went further and answered the question, “well WHY did [a certain mutation] occur?” with “God did it to continue the process of evolving a so-and-so” rather than “randomness dude, ineffable randomness.”)
I don’t believe in ID, but I wouldn’t have a problem with it being taught in our schools, so long as it was taught as philosophy rather than in biology class. That would take a pretty sweeping curriculum change, though.
Ah, no. ID is not simple Paleyan “natural theology”. I agree that this is a perfectly legitimate subject for a philosophical or religious studies class, of course.
Intelligent Design (capitals vital) is nothing more nor less than an attempt to dress up old-fashioned Scientific Creationism in a new suit of pseudo-scientific clothes, an attempt to generate “scientific” legitimacy for an unscientific, religiously-based, viewpoint; and, more importantly, to sneak behind Edwards v Aguillard and get fundamentalist religious doctrine into the public schools of the USA.
Yes, it is, in that it’s fundamentally inconsitent with science as a whole. The idea that the universe, or certain aspects of it, were designed by an intelligent deity is a legitimate religious belief, that is indeed consistent with science and evolution. Intelligent Design, the product of the Discovery Institute, Behe, Wells, Dembski, et al, is a positively anti-scientific idea.
There’s a problem with using that phrase “believes in” when discussing this area. It confuses the two types of intellectual inquiry that are in issue, and incorrectly equates them.
The scientific method is not based on “belief” in the same way as the religious approach. Science is about assembling an explanation for a set of facts, to explain how something happens - to convince by evidence. But one of the key principles of the scientific method is the idea of falsifiability - that if new evidence comes along, or a new interpretation of existing evidence, the first explanation may be shown to be not true, or considerably less true, than a new explanation.
So saying that a scientist “belives” in evolution is a misleading short-hand - “convinced by” is a far better verb to use, since it indicates two things: a) that the scientist has reviewd the evidence and is satisfired that the explanation is the best available; and b) that there is always the possibility that the scientist will cease to be convinced by the explanation if new evidence turns up, or a better explanation is put forward.
That is not how the religious thought processes work. “Belief” is a perfectly good word to use for faith-based inquiries.
Using “belief” to describe both the scientist’s views on science, and the religious person’s views on religion, is a semantic error, in my opinion.
(And, just to make one point clear - I’m using “scientist” and “religious person” as exemplars for the purpose of this particular discusion, not as mutually exclusive groups. Scientists can be religious persons, and vice versa.)
This question assumes that the debate currently occurring in the United States is a universal debate. It ain’t. Outside of the U.S., the theory of evolution is broadly accepted. In the U.K., Darwin is on the 10 pound note. School boards in Canada don’t try to put ID forward as an alternative explanation.
So I would suggest that the OP’s premise is flawed, since it assumes that there should be greater diversity of ideas on this issue if you look at the entire world.
The real issue is why this is a debate in the U.S.