Jorick said
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.
Just to clear up I don't believe in Intelligent Design, I follow Darwinian ideas (my essay is about God still being considered Creator through the Darwinian spectrum).
I think 8% (give or take a per cent) could be considered a "significant amount". Most modern day theories came from singular people and didn't gain popularity for multiple years. While I do disagree with them I think that should at least been given hearing. I do agree however, that there are people (the vocal majority) that use it as some Neo-Creationism idea as well, but as Jorick said, the theory on its own is plausible. A quote I'd like to pull out of one of my sources is from 2005 when President Bush commented on ID.
"Lost in the shuffle was one crucial fact. The Discovery Institute, the central coordinating and funding agency for research on Intelligent Design, had urged schools
not to require the insertion of ID into public school curriculum because the theory is in its adolescence and any 'teaching ID requirement; inevitably turns the question of design in nature into a political football."
Brovo said
Considering one of the lead proponents of ID is the Discovery Institute: Known for being painfully biased towards God and for being a conservative think tank, one should not be surprised that the majority who view it would see it as simply being another version of Creationism.
While I do agree there is no surprise for it being tossed in the same boat as creationism, the fact that they weren't trying to push it into to school the same way Young Earth Creationists are (I'm talking about you Ken Ham) should be noted. Many other creationists tried to push it on the school system, however, the leading institute did not (this may have changed, but as it isn't relevant to my essay I have no notes on it currently).