Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

The "opinion" part would be quantifying "almost none". Let me put it otherwise:

The very large majority of scientists with relevant degrees in fields related to evolution, do not find there is a scientific controversy surrounding the theory of evolution.

I'll let you google "project steve" if you think that's opinion.

No, that would be opinion.

You said:



A couple of points:

1. To question is not a sin.
2. Doubt is not weakness. I doubt every day and I'll wager that so do you.
3. Changing our mind about a point of origins does not necessarily means death to the immortal soul. This is evidenced by the different orthodox views of origins. For example, YEC vs OEC.
4. It is our belief that the devil generates information that separates God from man, therefore, information should be carefully studied.
5. Knowledge does not come straight from the supernatural. God gave us two revelations, special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (nature). We simply don't automatically discount the supernatural like non believers do.

One might think. Fortunately, the evidence is stable across a very, very broad range of different interpretations of that attribute, from scholastic test scores of numerous varieties, participation in various scholastic fields, admission to prominent universities, eminence of a variety of scientists, mentions in catalogs of noted intellectuals, membership in august organizations and, of course, the traditional IQ test.

There have been dozens of tests on this subject, utilizing a wide variety of metrics and all with the same result.

And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?

I do not accept both. Again, you are defining intellectualism by whatever floats your boat. After all, is not like there is only one theory of origins in the scientific community.

Again with the broad brush. I am a creationist. I hold to the OEC view.

It is hard to know what fundamentalists / creationists believe because there is so much variety; as you noted, yec /oec for example.

So if question isnt a sin to you, i've heard others say it is.

If doubt isnt a weakness to you, to others it is.

"Changing mind" I had in mind something important like, ok,there is no god after all.

The knowledge from supernatural, i condensed a bit. Fundamentaissts think "knowledtge" can be passed straight down from god. An intellectual approach calls for hard work and reason, just like I said.

As for "automatically discounting" the supernatural, I do discount anything for which there is no evidence. Same as i discount any story of an alien base in the hollow moon.

Believing in something that is undetectable and cannot be shown in any way to exist is not being very intellectual. Its just a leap of faith, and anyone can do that, no thought no reason no intelligence needed.

And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?

I don't think any of them explicitly measured creationism. However, I suspect that few atheists are creationists, and many of them did measure atheism. Also, while belief in God is extraordinarily low amongst eminent scientists, I strongly suspect that creationism is utterly absent. Creationism being a particularly despised subset of belief, I don't think one could reasonably conclude that measuring creationism vs. evolution as a component of these tests would result in anything other than a greater chasm between the relative intelligence of non-believers vs. that of creationists, specifically.

Indeed, creationism does not itself qualify as a scientific theory. Relegating creationism to pure hypothesis, there is no alternative theory to evolution, so far as I am aware.