It is my personal opinion that rising biology enrollments parallel ID’s popularity. I personally believe interest in ID encourages study of biology and conversely developments in biology have continued to fuel interest in ID. However, it would be pre-mature at this time to assert this as a quantitative argument. I can only offer it as a personal and qualitative opinion, but considering the modern ID movement’s beginning was in 1984, I will let the reader simply consider the numbers I provide below and draw their own conclusions.
Nevertheless, I think people like Brian Alters (see Brian Alters Drivel) can not rigorously demonstrate the opposite claim, namely, that interest in ID somehow diminishes interest in science, particularly biology. I would actually argue Darwinist behavior is tarnishing biology and making the field have the appearance of being disreputable and unattractive. It would be better for the world of science to drop its promotion of Darwinism.
Something to consider statistically from the National Academy of Sciences of the USA:
National Academy of Sciences Press
Overall, the number of freshman biology majors increased from about 50,000 in the early 1980s to over 73,000 in 2000.2 In terms of actual bachelorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s degrees awarded in the biological sciences, there was a decrease from about 47,000 in 1980 to 37,000 in 1989 and then a relatively sharp rise to over 67,000 in 1998. This was followed by a slight decline to about 65,000 in 2000.
Does that indicate the discipline of biology is in dire straights given that half of the population in the USA accept special creation, and a good portion on top of that accept at least some form of ID?
One poll question worth asking,
If you concluded that life was the result an intelligence versus a blind purposeless process, would it:
A. not affect your interest in science
B. decrease your interest in science
C. increase your interest in science
How would you answer? My personal answer if that question were posed to me is “C”.