[quote=Shy]Intelligent Design - the belief that evolution DOES exist (certainly on a micro scale though macro is under debate) but there are things such as "irreducibly complex cells" that could not have possibly developed by themselves. This theory does not imply a Christian God, simply a designer of some sort (some scientists have claimed aliens). This is based PURELY ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not any sort of religious text. While a smaller chunk of scientists than the Evolutionist belief, there is still a significant amount of scientists who have this belief.

The main debate (at least in more 'scholarly' areas) has been between Darwinism and ID, not Creationism (since most disregard it, as it is not considered science). THe problem is, most scientists who back ID get labelled as Creationists who are religious fanatics and they get tossed to the side fairly often. One of the authors of one of my source books (Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe - this book basically exploded the entire ID vs Darwinism debate) explains in it how going to seminars and such his students expect him to spout religious nonsense but are actually surprised when he comes at it from a fully scientific point of view. So basically my point is don't confused Intelligent Design and Creationism, they are very different things.

That wasn't in extreme detail or anything because I really do have to get to work on this essay (which I'll be happy to share with you all after if you want) so I can get it done with. The thesis is that Creation and Evolution are compatible (Creation, not creationism.)[/quote]

For the actual numbers, from the info I found yesterday, about 97% of scientists in general say evolution is a real thing and about 2% saying it's false. For those who agree that it's real, 87% (of all scientists, not 87% of the 97%) say it happened through natural processes, 8% think it was guided by some supreme being, and the other 2% are undecided or didn't answer. I probably wouldn't call 8% a significant amount, but significance is relative so whatever.

The problem with intelligent design is that while it's a plausible theory in its own right, it gets co-opted by creationist turds. Most of the people fighting for ID to be taught alongside evolution are actually creationists trying to crack open the door with what appears to be reasonable scientific things, but only in order to then be able to shove their religion wholesale into public schools. The actual idea in and of itself is not problematic, it's the people who try to use it as a tool for bad things that make it a problem. These kinds of things happening account for why ID is becoming so ridiculed and distrusted. It's similar to how feminism in and of itself is fine, but when shitlords get their hands on it and use it as a tool to push their own awful agendas, that's when it gets viewed in a greatly negative light. There's nothing really wrong with ID (aside from the parts that aren't scientific, like positing the existence of an intelligent designer, but that just means it shouldn't be taught in schools, not that it's inherently wrong or bad), it's just been used by the wrong people and now has a bad reputation.