I think the OP is merely asking:
“If you survey the world’s populations, what are the top 3 most common ideas for how humans came to be?”
Evolution might not even be listed in the top 3.
Of China’s approx. 1.1billion people, how many have educations that teach evolution?
Of India’s approx 750million people, same question.
This is almost 40% of worlds population, and if I remember correctly, China has been struggling to ensure primary education for all. And, although it seems like India has typically been good at education, when we are talking about 750mil, it would be easy to miss large portions of population.
I think that when looking at the entire world, you will definately see greater diversity.
Actually, I think “a good portion of the world” doesn’t really care, whatever they were taught in school, if they got a chance to go to school. It’s that way with most scientific issues – only intellectuals and zealots take much interest in them. Of what practical relevance is it to you or me, in our daily lives, if our ancestors were created or evolved or were planted here by an extraterrestrial cloning program?
Don’t confuse the marketing campaign with the theory. I said that most people don’t understand ID; my “most people” included the people who are engaged in the effort to get ID into our science classes. Of course there’s something pernicious about the Intelligent Design movement. But the ideas are neither new nor particularly alarming.
It can be hard to pin down Hinduism’s beliefs, since there are countless sects and no central religious authority. There are countless creation stories, most of which are the sort of colorful fables that you’d expect. Nobody really worries about reconciling them. Hinduism tends to be more concerned with one’s personal spirtuality and the metaphoric value of religion than trying to prove these things in the physical world. The idea of going out and proving the god’s feats using worldy evidence is completely beyond the point. It’s not the physical truth that matters, it’s the spiritual ones.
The Rig Veda has this to say:
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence.
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
Who covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
But, after all, who knows, and who can say,
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
So who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Yes, I agree. It’s important to distinguish between the belief that the universe is intelligently designed, and the Intelligent Design movement. That was all I was trying to convey in my post - I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear enough.
Thanks for the correction - I’m afraid my knowledge of Hinduism is mainly based on “Life of Pi”. 
Would a typical devout Hindu go as far as actively denying that the theory of evolution is correct, as the typical Christian fundamentalist would? I assume not from your posting, but I may be wrong.
The problem here, ParentalAdvisory–and the reason you’re not really getting much in the way of clear answers to your OP–is that your OP itself legitimizes ID beyond its right to legitimacy (which is, as pointed out, nil). ID has no actual claim to theoretical currency; only its marketing effectiveness has. In other words, as pointed out above, it’s a completely bankrupt, nonsensical non-idea with a great marketing team.
So your OP indicates that, to a certain extent, you believe ID to have SOME legitimacy, if only in a minority view. This is not the case.
The fact is–and this really is a fact–that evolution is as much a fact as gravity or electricity. The only “debate” is about the mechanism of evolution: what drives it. Science says science drives it. Or rather, that “natural selection” drives it: that the weaker organisms reproduce fewer offspring than the stronger. That’s how simple it is. The ID marketers say that GOD chooses who will reproduce more offspring, on his own arbitrary whim. ID doesn’t even acknowledge the possible middle ground that god chooses by having set up the system of natural selection in the first place, as most religious scientists believe.
So you see where it’s gonna be difficult to get any serious person to even engage with ID at the basic level required to take your OP seriously.
Minor correction - this position has the rather oxymoronic name of “Evolutionary Creationism”, and it’s just about on the right side of the line as far as science is concerned. The basic thesis of the ID movement is that certain aspects of living things are so complex that it’s impossible (not merely unlikely - absolutely impossible) for them to have arisen from earlier, simpler, ancestral forms, and therefore can only have been introduced into the world by the direct, creative act of God. Or, rather, “The Designer”.
I understand that. The implication of ID is that which organisms survive to reproduce is due to god’s personal interference in the process, which is what I intended to convey. The fact that his choice manifests itself by “magical” adaptations, rather than actually pollinating with a Qtip, I assumed was a given.
IANAHindu, but from what I gather the average Hindu wouldn’t really worry about it. There are fundamentalist Hindus that are every bit as annoying as fundamentalist Christians, but they are the minority.
Hinduism is a very geographical religion. There is a lot of material for the kinds of pseudo-science explanations that IDers are prone to. Most of the religious sites are the specific places where a specific story happened. You can go see the well that Shiva dug that still dispenses the light of wisdom in liquid form, or the place where Krishna danced with the goatherders, or the various places where Sati’s cremated body parts fell as Shiva carried her corpse around in his dance of death- now they are mountains and rocks and the like. I’ve never head of any movement to, say, analyze the mountains and see if they are really Sati’s body parts. I never saw any plaques or anything trying to give a modern explanation of these things. I’m sure someone out there is trying it, but they are nowhere near the mainstream.
It’s impossible to say what your “average” Hindu would do, since Hinduism really is of a different nature than the religions we are used to. There is no central creed, no required set of beliefs, no single book or authority or anything. Before the British came, there wasn’t even a concept of a single thing called “Hinduism.” The founding books and one of the few things pretty much everyone agrees on, the Vedas, are mostly full of gods nobody even worships anymore and rituals nobody really does. But that doesn’t bother anyone. They just keep doing what they do and what they’ve always done for as far back as anyone remembers. For some, it’s a philisophical system and a useful set of metaphors. For others, it means they worship the particularly neat looking tree outside their village. I’ve met people who consider Jesus Christ to be a Hindu diety. It’s too big and varied and inclusive of a religion to really speculate much about.
I actually disagree, but hold on a moment before you open fire.
I would venture to suggest that ID actually has less scientific legitimacy than traditional creationism because it doesn’t really make any falsifiable claims; it’s just a mess of wooly posturing, whereas at least creationism asserts something (and is of course wrong).
Creationism is falsified science. ID is nothing of the sort; it’s scarcely even philosophy.
See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330058
Well, I’m not aware of any creationists who have tried to approach it as a matter of science. Say rather that it’s apparently scientifically falsified myth/faith/religion.
This is just plain wrong. The ideas behind ID are philosophy, and they aren’t even crackpot or outdated ideas. It’s not a startling, or stupid, idea: there are those who believe that the living organisms on Earth exhibit too much order, complexity, and superb adaptation to environment to be the result of random mutation and natural selection. Ergo, they conclude, an intelligence has been at work at some point(s) in the process. Obviously, many proponents of this idea, both at present and in the past, have had ulterior motives. That doesn’t make the ideas easily dismissable. Nor does the fact that they can’t be disproved scientifically. Science can’t answer every question you might have; it’s up to you to decide whether you want to seek those answers through other means, or just leave the questions unanswered.
There are those - generally those who know a little bit about biology - who believe that the living organisms on Earth exhibit too much randomness (several thousand species of beetles?), unnecessary complexity (why do terrestrial vertebrates have kidneys that are only suitable for fresh-water fish, with additional apparatus to recover salt?) and appalling adaptation to the environment (why are our retinas installed backwards? Why do humans have an appendix? Why do we need to rely on our diet for vitamin C, when all but two other animals can produce it internally? Why do our respiratory and digestive tracts cross over, so that we’re subject to choking?) to be the product of any sort of design, other than that of a pathologically incompetent or actively wicked Designer.
But when science can answer a question, that answer should be preferred to any others.
This is just nonsense; ID (at least in the form we’re talking about here) isn’t about seeking answers to questions that ‘science can’t answer’, it’s about a political movement to sneak a religious viewpopint into the science curriculum.
ID isn’t even about seeking answers; it’s about making them up.
Sure, it’s possible for IDists to be non-religious; we’re always being told that, but… where are they?
This translates, roughly, as: “I don’t understand it, therefore it cannot be understood.” This is irreligious hubris, you ax me. Hubris, because it suggests that my ability to understand is what limits science, and dictates where science leaves off and religion begins. Irreligious, because it seems to be a claim to knowing the mind of god.
Science would say, “We don’t understand it yet.” Which, you ax me again, is more appropriately in awe of god, or science, or whatever your metaphor of choice is. ID is an attempt to end investigation; to limit understanding; to throw our hands up and go, “I don’t see it, so it’s unseeable. So let’s call it magic and go home.”
So it’s not only scientifically bankrupt, but religiously bankrupt. You ax me.
Dude, that’s what philosophy is.
At best science can just keep moving the goalposts. There will always be more unanswered "why"s for people who like to ask “why.” And science will never prove there’s no such thing as god or an intelligent designer; at best it will force rational-thinking ID adherents to alter their thinking on where in the process the intelligence was brought to bear. You can draw your own conclusions about what that says about their ideas, but it’s pointless to belittle them just because you disagree.
The people who keep arguing with me that the ID movement is stupid are missing my point. I don’t subscribe to ID or any theory even remotely similar, and I readily admit that the movement to get ID into our schools is flawed for a whole slew of reasons. But the belief in a creator-type being who continues to tinker with his/her creation is fine by me. Reasonable, even. That I lack such a belief has less to do with any feeling I have that it is wrong – how would I know – than with the fact that I really just don’t care.
THis betrays a basic ignorance. Science claims no goalposts. Only someone who does not understand science would say such a thing.
Science makes no attempt to do so.
Where is the belittling? Is pointing out ignorance ipso facto “belittling”? If so, then you’re acknowledging the impossibility of debating this. ID is explicitly arguing FOR ignorance; literally, explicitly. You seem to be suggesting that words such as “ignorance” are offlimits in this discussion. But that’s disingenuous sabotaging of the discussion: IDers brought ignorance into the discussion in the first place.
Your willingness to cloud the discussion with strawmen you don’t even believe bewilders me.
Your apparent unwillingness to concede the possibility that a view with which you disagree might be reasonable frustrates me.
I think you have it wrong when you accuse ID proponents of “giving up” or “arguing for ignorance.” As you admit, science is is not attempting to answer every question. Do you also admit that no amount of good science can prove that there was no intelligence at work in creating the world as we experience it? If so, then it must be reasonable to believe it was so.
“with which I disagree” has nothing to do with it. I’ve heard their “argument,” I’ve considered it, I’ve drawn a conclusion, I’ve shared that conclusion. I don’t have to “concede” something which, upon due consideration, makes no sense. Your insistance that I must concede something which makes no sense is further bewildering.
I “admit” no such thing. Science is a process; a neverending process. It is not goal oriented, it is process oriented. One discovery leads to another; each “goal” is just a step in the eternal process. You continue to betray an ignorance of the nature of science.
That is a non-scientific question. That’s not how science works. And even if so, “reasonable” doesn’t follow. [Jack McCoy]Reasonable doubt does not mean *any *doubt. It means a reasonable doubt.[/Jack McCoy] Imagining a non-disprovable philosophical conundrum does not invalidate the whole of science, as you seem to conclude.
Johnny Cochran was lying to the jury when he said, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” The fact is, he was promulgating the incorrect metaphor that evidence is a chain; that any weak link in the chain weakens the entire chain. That is not the case. If you have ONE piece of overwhelmingly conclusive evidence, then no amount of inconclusive evidence–an ill fitting glove; a complex organic mechanism–has any contradictory effect on the validity of the conclusive piece whatsoever.
I know I made that as complicated as possible, but I hope you’ll reread it and try to suss some sense out of it. The point being that, the fact that you can imagine a complex mechanism that has not yet been explained, has no probative value whatsoever in relation to the other mechanisms that HAVE been explained.
Again, your contention that MY inability to prove that “there was no intelligence at work in creating the world as we experience it” in any way suggests–let alone proves–that “then it must be reasonable to believe it was so,” is just not how science works.
I am not making this up.