Project Steve

[webboffin]

evolutionist all sound the same

 

[Arikay]

LOL

 

[ardipithecus]

Stephen W. Hawking is the three-hundredth Steve.

 

[Jeptha]

So. This surprises everyone? I can assure you this much. If one is not a tenured professor at a major university, then one had better keep his mouth shut if one does not swallow neo-darwinism. Why? Because that is the only way you will keep your job.

In fact, unless you are a graduate student at a private school, one better keep his mouth shut if one even wants to enter the PhD program in science. If it gets out that you don’t buy this pseudo-science, you’re done. Have the secular humanists taken over Western academia? Yep. And just as was Iraq, no dissension allowed. Not even reason.

 

[Zadok001]

Jeptha:

Project Steve was started in response to a similar Creationist project. The Creationists got themselves 50 (?) 'scientists' that agreed with a vague statement regarding evolution not being an accurate description of origins.

Obviously, such a project is an appeal to numbers - Look at us, scientists agree! Project Steve is a counterpoint - If the Creationist project is convincing evidence of Creationism, Project Steve should be more convincing by orders of magnitude!

Yes, it's a logical fallacy, and may even be wrong in that it misrepresents the viewpoint of scientists (assuming, of course, a signifigant number of Steves don't agree with evolution and are afraid to say so). It exists to show the fallacious reasoning behind the similar Creationist project, nothing more.

Basically the same thing as a reduction to absurdity.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I think I will keep my ''Religious Fanatic'' title intact

 

[Jeptha]

“Project Steve was started in response to a similar Creationist project. The Creationists got themselves 50 (?) 'scientists' that agreed with a vague statement regarding evolution not being an accurate description of origins.”

JEP: Oh. I see. I wasn’t getting it. I’m familiar with that petition against the pro-darwin documentary on PBS. That was 100 scientists from many major universities that signed the petition stating that natural selection is highly overblown.

”Obviously, such a project is an appeal to numbers - Look at us, scientists agree! Project Steve is a counterpoint - If the Creationist project is convincing evidence of Creationism, Project Steve should be more convincing by orders of magnitude! ”

JEP: Convinced me…….maybe.

”Yes, it's a logical fallacy, and may even be wrong in that it misrepresents the viewpoint of scientists (assuming, of course, a signifigant number of Steves don't agree with evolution and are afraid to say so). It exists to show the fallacious reasoning behind the similar Creationist project, nothing more.

Basically the same thing as a reduction to absurdity.”

JEP: It is a logical fallacy because the evos don’t see where the creos were coming from with that petition. One of the first posits thrown at us when we enter into a discussion with an evolutionist is that if we are so correct, then why does 100% of all the scientists in academia disagree with us? Well, not all do. And we’re not talking about creationists or ID professors, but main-stream scientists from major universities such as MIT, Yale and Harvard. But only the tenured ones. Only the tenured ones.

 

[Arikay]

The big question is:

How many biologists (the science that evolution is in) disagree with evolution?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 05:45 PM Arikay said this in Post #28

The big question is:

How many biologists (the science that evolution is in) disagree with evolution?

A better question would be how many disagree for non-theological reasons.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 03:04 AM Jeptha said this in Post #24

So. This surprises everyone? I can assure you this much. If one is not a tenured professor at a major university, then one had better keep his mouth shut if one does not swallow neo-darwinism. Why? Because that is the only way you will keep your job.

In fact, unless you are a graduate student at a private school, one better keep his mouth shut if one even wants to enter the PhD program in science. If it gets out that you don’t buy this pseudo-science, you’re done. Have the secular humanists taken over Western academia? Yep. And just as was Iraq, no dissension allowed. Not even reason.

Decide to crank up our conspiracy machine and pull that one out did we?  You have some sort of evidence for this evil global conspiracy to silence the Young Earth position and the mounds of evidence behind it?  Or shall we toss this in with "we never landed on the moon" and "the Smithsonian murdered people to create missing links" on the pile of absurd consiracy theories that have no merit? 

One more question, if young earthers have all this evidence that is being supressed by the academic elite, why is the stuff they put up on the internet, a veritable information free for all, so  c r a p p y?

-brett

 

[Zadok001]

Today at 10:42 PM Jeptha said this in Post #27

“Project Steve was started in response to a similar Creationist project. The Creationists got themselves 50 (?) 'scientists' that agreed with a vague statement regarding evolution not being an accurate description of origins.”

JEP: Oh. I see. I wasn’t getting it. I’m familiar with that petition against the pro-darwin documentary on PBS. That was 100 scientists from many major universities that signed the petition stating that natural selection is highly overblown.

If I recall, none of which were biologists. 

And it remains a clear appeal to numbers.  "Look, Scientists agree" is an appeal to authority, and there's no way around that.

”Yes, it's a logical fallacy, and may even be wrong in that it misrepresents the viewpoint of scientists (assuming, of course, a signifigant number of Steves don't agree with evolution and are afraid to say so). It exists to show the fallacious reasoning behind the similar Creationist project, nothing more.

Basically the same thing as a reduction to absurdity.”

JEP: It is a logical fallacy because the evos don’t see where the creos were coming from with that petition. One of the first posits thrown at us when we enter into a discussion with an evolutionist is that if we are so correct, then why does 100% of all the scientists in academia disagree with us? Well, not all do. And we’re not talking about creationists or ID professors, but main-stream scientists from major universities such as MIT, Yale and Harvard. But only the tenured ones. Only the tenured ones.

Not quite.  The first thing thrown against you is "Where's the evidence?"  I don't think anyone ever claimed "100% of academia," and if they did, I'll happily say that's just blatently incorrect.  I know at least one Prof (in Engineering, mind you) who is convinced of Genesis's historical veracity.

As has been pointed out already, the real question is the percentage of biology PhDs and academia.

 

[Yinlowang]

Yesterday at 11:34 PM Jeptha said this in Post #24

So. This surprises everyone? I can assure you this much. If one is not a tenured professor at a major university, then one had better keep his mouth shut if one does not swallow neo-darwinism. Why? Because that is the only way you will keep your job. 

JEP: Oh. I see. I wasn’t getting it. I’m familiar with that petition against the pro-darwin documentary on PBS. That was 100 scientists from many major universities that signed the petition stating that natural selection is highly overblown.

I am confused.  

 

 

[Jeptha]

"I am confused."

JEP: Funny, I thought you were Yinlowang. But what are you confused about??

 

[Zadok001]

Your two statements seem to be in contradiction. Yinlowang missed the 'tenured professor' bit, which you referred to again in your response to my last post.

Yinlowang, Jeptha's claim is that no individual who is not a tenured Prof can make that claim and retain a position. Hence, the Creationist list contains only tenured Profs.

 

[Arikay]

He is confused because you said that scientists know they should keep their mouths shut or feel the rather of the Evilution conspiracy.

Yet, you then talk about 100 scientists who signed the petition.

I guess they didnt get the evilutionists memo.

Again, how many biologists are on that petition?

 

[Jeptha]

“If I recall, none of which were biologists. ”

JEP: In all honesty I don’t remember what the scientists were. I do remember being impressed that I was aware of most the universities they taught at. But one doesn’t have to be a biologist in order to study evolution. There are many evolutionists who are not biologists.

”And it remains a clear appeal to numbers. "Look, Scientists agree" is an appeal to authority, and there's no way around that.”

JEP: Yes, I’ve agreed that this is a logical fallacy on both sides.

”Not quite. The first thing thrown against you is "Where's the evidence?" I don't think anyone ever claimed "100% of academia," and if they did, I'll happily say that's just blatently incorrect. I know at least one Prof (in Engineering, mind you) who is convinced of Genesis's historical veracity.”

JEP: What kind of evidence are you looking for? Evidence to substantiate creationism, a religious postulate based on subjective reality? Or evidence to provide feet to intelligent design; or negative evidence to disprove evolution??

”As has been pointed out already, the real question is the percentage of biology PhDs and academia.”

JEP: Nah, Now you are back to arguing from authority. Here’s one you might swallow: 99% of the Muslims in Iraq believe that the grandson of Mohammed had his head cut off. 24 hours later, his head was put back on and this dude was fine. This miracle is the reason that about a million of them try to make this pilgrimage to Karbala like you are watching on TV right now. Well, there ya go. If 99% of them posit this, then we know it must be gospel!

 

[Jeptha]

Thank you, Zadoc. You caught it.

 

[Zadok001]

Jep: I wouldn't have caught it if you hadn't repeated it for me earlier. 

Today at 01:09 AM Jeptha said this in Post #36

“If I recall, none of which were biologists. ”

JEP: In all honesty I don’t remember what the scientists were. I do remember being impressed that I was aware of most the universities they taught at. But one doesn’t have to be a biologist in order to study evolution. There are many evolutionists who are not biologists.

But I wouldn't trust 'em to give me the real deal on it.  That's why most evolutionists here tend to link to works by people more versed in the field than them.  Lucaspa seems to be an exception, and given his background, I don't mind. 

”Not quite. The first thing thrown against you is "Where's the evidence?" I don't think anyone ever claimed "100% of academia," and if they did, I'll happily say that's just blatently incorrect. I know at least one Prof (in Engineering, mind you) who is convinced of Genesis's historical veracity.”

JEP: What kind of evidence are you looking for? Evidence to substantiate creationism, a religious postulate based on subjective reality? Or evidence to provide feet to intelligent design; or negative evidence to disprove evolution??

I generally don't bother objecting to ID theory.  My posts around here are pretty much limited to philosophy, logic, and YECism.  Hence, the evidence *I* want YECs to try to produce would be something that:

1. Falsifies common descent.

2. Can only be explained in the context of a global flood or a young earth.

3. Refutations of the multiple falsifications of YECism already present on this board.

I am *not* impressed by claims of IC systems, attempts to squeeze existing evidence into YECism.

”As has been pointed out already, the real question is the percentage of biology PhDs and academia.”

JEP: Nah, Now you are back to arguing from authority.  {Note - Rest of this response deleted for the sake of space.}

Yups.    Still fallacious, but it makes the argument look better if you've got people who know what they're talking about signing your petition.

I was implying that if this type of argument is what you want to use, you might as well ask the people who know something.  It looks better.  (I can't help it.  My brain automatically works under the mindset of a public relations worker...)

 

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday at 03:04 AM Jeptha said this in Post #24

So. This surprises everyone? I can assure you this much. If one is not a tenured professor at a major university, then one had better keep his mouth shut if one does not swallow neo-darwinism. Why? Because that is the only way you will keep your job.

In fact, unless you are a graduate student at a private school, one better keep his mouth shut if one even wants to enter the PhD program in science. If it gets out that you don’t buy this pseudo-science, you’re done. Have the secular humanists taken over Western academia? Yep. And just as was Iraq, no dissension allowed. Not even reason.

So where are the professors who have tenure who don't have to fear loosing their jobs who doubt evolution.  How about those about to retire?  Who have retired? Or how about those who are smart enough to realize that recognized scientist could make a lot of money by writing a pro-creationism book?  What about the Ph.D.'s in industry?  In government?  How about ones who have won Nobel Prizes and other recognition who thus for all practical purposes completely secure in their employment?

Frankly the argument that the reason that scientists don't doubt Darwin out of fear is as stupid as it is ignorant.

And to compare science with Iraq where thousands were killed for dissent is really disgusting.  Please refrain from dishonoring Saddam's victims by such innane comparisons.