% that accept evolution per state

[ViaCrucis]

simple: the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life

I don't know that mutations are particularly "random". It may depend on what you mean by randomness.

Mutations happen for a reason, or rather there are causes.

So if you want to define "Darwinian evolution" as "evolution over time by natural selection" then the answer is that all real scientists subscribe to it, or at least those in the relevant fields.

Whether or not my local meteorologist does, who knows.

But how one could deny the relevant science and be employed in that field is beyond me.

So, yes, I am saying that "creation scientists" aren't real scientists. Their work isn't peer reviewed, their work doesn't stand the scrutiny of the scientific method. It's junk science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know that mutations are particularly "random". It may depend on what you mean by randomness.

Mutations happen for a reason, or rather there are causes.

So if you want to define "Darwinian evolution" as "evolution over time by natural selection" then the answer is that all real scientists subscribe to it, or at least those in the relevant fields.

Whether or not my local meteorologist does, who knows.

But how one could deny the relevant science and be employed in that field is beyond me.

So, yes, I am saying that "creation scientists" aren't real scientists. Their work isn't peer reviewed, their work doesn't stand the scrutiny of the scientific method. It's junk science.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't define it as "evolution over time by natural selection", please reread what I said.

thanks for the post.

 

[createdtoworship]

I must ask a question, how many real scientists believe in darwinian evolution? Does anyone even know?

hold your breath, for a long time! Still waiting...it's been an hour and a half!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't define it as "evolution over time by natural selection", please reread what I said.

thanks for the post.

Then your definition needs redefining.

I could define the theory of general relativity as "monkey see monkey do" and then ask how many physicists subscribe to the theory of general relativity.

But that's hardly offering anything meaningful to a conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

Then your definition needs redefining.

I could define the theory of general relativity as "monkey see monkey do" and then ask how many physicists subscribe to the theory of general relativity.

But that's hardly offering anything meaningful to a conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

wishful thinking sir, my definitions are my definitions. If you wish not to participate in the discussion, then I bid fair-well. Thank you.

 

[Split Rock]

I do not even need to comment, on your post. Your negativity answers for itself. Why are you running, if you didn't do anything wrong (says the police officer)

Sorry if the truth hurts, I guess.

simple: the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life

Then I would say not very many. The known additional mechanisms, genetic drift and gene flow, are also required to account for the complexity of life.

 

[Gracchus]

Prove it:

my sources say 46% of general population hold to creationism:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

I would expect similiar results had gallup pole surveyed scientists.

again my list included 800 scientists that adhere to non darwinian views.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Well, scientific questions are not decided by the majority opinion, but as of 7/7/14 there are 1343 scientists named Steve who accept biological evolution. So there are more scientists named "Steve" who accept evolution than in your whole list.

Project Steve | NCSE

It turns out that the general population, taken as a whole, contains a fair percentage of the ... intellectually challenged ... and very large number who are ignorant of science.

The last Gallup Poll I saw on the subject showed that 95% of practicing scientists accepted evolution, and that was 99% of scientists in the fields of geology and biology.

And if 46% of the population are creationists, I blame Ronald Reagan, who closed down the lunatic asylums.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, scientific questions are not decided by the majority opinion, but as of 7/7/14 there are 1343 scientists named Steve who accept biological evolution. So there are more scientists named "Steve" who accept evolution than in your whole list.

Project Steve | NCSE

It turns out that the general population, taken as a whole, contains a fair percentage of the ... intellectually challenged ... and very large number who are ignorant of science.

The last Gallup Poll I saw on the subject showed that 95% of practicing scientists accepted evolution, and that was 99% of scientists in the fields of geology and biology.

And if 46% of the population are creationists, I blame Ronald Reagan, who closed down the lunatic asylums.

Not all the names signed to project steve are in fact steve, secondly not all the names signed are in fact empirical scientists, and thirdly project steve uses vague terminology and does not address the same claims as the Dissent from Darwin statement (which 800 scientists have signed).

Firstly: Not all steves are in fact steve-
According to project steve website :
You can be a “steve” if you:
• “Are you named Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie?”
Want to be an NCSE Steve? | NCSE
Stephanie? Really?
According to How Many of Me just adding Stephanie to the list, doubles it (not to mention adding Esteban, Etienne, or Stephen). So this is a faked list of steves. At least half of them most likely are not actually people with the literal name of steve (see end note calculation for more info*)

Secondly according to their website, not all of project steve are scientists: some are “economists, philosophers, psychiatrists, science educators, medical researchers, computer scientists, and so forth.” And so forth? Really? So I guess I could be a steve. (If I wanted to).


Not only are the stats forged so too is the comparison between “Project steve” and the 800 scientists who reject Darwinian Theory as found here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
and here:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf


here is a comparison, in a blog post from evolutionnewsandviews.com:
“The Dissent from Darwin statement counters and preempts any claim that (1) there is no scientific dissent over how evolution happens, by what means, that is, or that (2) it is unscientific to be skeptical of the proposition that natural selection and random mutation together satisfactorily explain the development of life over time. A scientist and signatory of the Dissent list need not specifically work in evo-devo, say, in order to serve as a counterexample to (1) and (2).
As to your other important question, the Project Steve statement does not address the same claims as the Dissent from Darwin statement. Project Steve says, for example, that "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence." But that is not the same as affirming either (1) or (2), not even close. So there is no conflict between the two, at least as Project Steve is currently worded. That means Project Steve is not really a "counter," as you say, to the Dissent from Darwin list or statement.-steve”

William dembski replies as well to project steve:

1. If Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies—that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution.[19- Project Steve – Establishing the Obvious: A Response to the NCSE, William Dembski, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute, March 19, 2003.
Above quote from :
CSC - Project Steve - Establishing the Obvious:

*This inflation of the project steve name list is so affected that when we reduce the number to only steve, it amounts to 391,729 only in the world, and among which 1343 are part of project steve. That’s only .0034283 % of the population. (note: not all the population are scientists, this is a figure of all the steves and stephanies in the world as found at How Many of Me. Figures are take from the date: 7/12/14.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then I would say not very many. The known additional mechanisms, genetic drift and gene flow, are also required to account for the complexity of life.

so you are saying that sciencts do or do not believe my definition?

 

[Gracchus]

(I edited the pretty colors to reduce eyestrain.)

Not all the names signed to project steve are in fact steve, secondly not all the names signed are in fact empirical scientists, and thirdly project steve uses vague terminology and does not address the same claims as the Dissent from Darwin statement (which 800 scientists have signed).

Firstly: Not all steves are in fact steve-
According to project steve website :
You can be a “steve” if you:
• “Are you named Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie?”
Want to be an NCSE Steve? | NCSE
Stephanie? Really?

Stephanie! Really! It may have escaped your attention that women can actually be scientists.

Here is the explanation from the web-site: "NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism". Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a 'theory in crisis.' Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because 'Steves' are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution".

So if the "Steves" are 1% of practicing scientists, then let's see, 1343 X 100 gives a figure of over 130,000 scientists who, if the statistics hold up, would have signed signed this statement: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

You did not address, (and I can only guess why,) that according to the Gallup Poll, 95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution, and 99% of those in the biological and geological sciences accept it.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." --- Hebrews 11:1 NIV

Faith, in other words, is the confidence that your wishes will come true. If you want to believe it, go ahead. But it isn't science.

Why don't you just take your crayons and coloring book, and try to color inside the lines.

 

[createdtoworship]

Stephanie! Really! It may have escaped your attention that women can actually be scientists.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

nonsequitur fallacy! It doesn't follow. Secondly I could only assume it to be a red herring, and possibly an an adhominem (depending on your motive to start your rebuttal with a feminine sexist remark.

Here is the explanation from the web-site: "NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism". Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a 'theory in crisis.' Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded.

thats not it at all, all that is implied by said lists is that uniformity is not uniform.

NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted.

sounds like laziness to me, but what do I know.

We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

again, possibly just laziness here.

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because 'Steves' are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution".

this is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because steve's are evolutionists, doesn't make Marks, Jessicas, and Henry's evolutionists.

So if the "Steves" are 1% of practicing scientists, then let's see, 1343 X 100 gives a figure of over 130,000 scientists who, if the statistics hold up, would have signed signed this statement:

again slippery slope, here.

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.

this begs the question as to what is "well supported" , and "overwhelmingly in favor".

Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution,

understatement of the year, evolution is trending in the reverse. More and more scientists are seeing the flaws as we progress through a scientific era.

there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

"

name calling and just ad hominem fallacy here, no factual argument.(i.e. pseudoscience is creationism).

You did not address, (and I can only guess why,) that according to the Gallup Poll, 95% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution, and 99% of those in the biological and geological sciences accept it.

see my last post, I did actually address it. I did require sleep last night and have not seen the post (obviously while I was sleeping, as you would imagine).

"

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." --- Hebrews 11:1 NIV

this is a pretextualization of hebrews 11:1, context is not lack of evidence means we have faith.

Faith

, in other words, is the confidence that your wishes will come true. If you want to believe it, go ahead. But it isn't science.

again you beg the question as to what entails "science".

Why don't you just take your crayons and coloring book, and try to color inside the lines.

an ad hominem argument. The highlighting or non color of text does not represent the factual data behind the arguments, thank you for your time.

 

[bhsmte]

Prove it:

my sources say 46% of general population hold to creationism:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

I would expect similiar results had gallup pole surveyed scientists.

again my list included 800 scientists that adhere to non darwinian views.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

You actually think scientists (biologists especially) are going to agree with the TOE at the same rate as the general public? Clearly, you have done zero work to investigate what you claim.

 

[createdtoworship]

You actually think scientists (biologists especially) are going to agree with the TOE at the same rate as the general public? Clearly, you have done zero work to investigate what you claim.

It was a simple comparison, that scientists do come from a stock of general public. Anyone can be a scientists with a proper education. ARe you suggesting otherwise? Or are you suggesting that uniformitarainism sets in at the PhD level, like a virus infecting all who turn out in their white lab coats? Tht is possible. But I am not sure what you are suggesting here, can you expand?

 

[florida2]

You actually think scientists (biologists especially) are going to agree with the TOE at the same rate as the general public? Clearly, you have done zero work to investigate what you claim.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has some interesting statistics on this video about religious belief and the general public compared to education level and scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA

 

[bhsmte]

It was a simple comparison, that scientists do come from a stock of general public. Anyone can be a scientists with a proper education. ARe you suggesting otherwise? Or are you suggesting that uniformitarainism sets in at the PhD level, like a virus infecting all who turn out in their white lab coats? Tht is possible. But I am not sure what you are suggesting here, can you expand?

Putting words and assumptions in my mouth and I see your are maintaining your reputation in this regard.

Would you agree that the TOE is a fairly complicated subject, which requires a good deal of education to understand at a high enough level to be a PHD in Biology?

Therefore, the general public, are not going to be in a good place to make an informed decision on whether they agree or disagree with the TOE, because it requires much more effort than most other things they tend to agree or disagree with.

One can make an uninformed decision (and we all know how those typically go) or they can make an informed decision and learning enough of science to understand it, is quite challenging to many. Add in, long held religious beliefs that were introduced to someone as a child and these beliefs conflict with the TOE and guess what, you have a barrier that gives people a reason to take the lazy way out.

As an example, I am a physiologist and it is amazing how little people know about exercise and diet and how it pertains to the desire of many to lose weight. So many have wrong perceptions of the reality of how the body operates, because they take the lazy way out and want the magical solution. In America, it is the same with the vast majority of scientists agreeing with the TOE and only about 55% of the general public agreeing with it.

Another correlation between agreement with the TOE is; education levels. The higher the education level one attains, the greater likelihood of agreeing with the TOE and also not believing in deities.

 

[createdtoworship]

Putting words and assumptions in my mouth and I see your are maintaining your reputation in this regard.

Would you agree that the TOE is a fairly complicated subject, which requires a good deal of education to understand at a high enough level to be a PHD in Biology?

Therefore, the general public, are not going to be in a good place to make an informed decision on whether they agree or disagree with the TOE, because it requires much more effort than most other things they tend to agree or disagree with.

One can make an uninformed decision (and we all know how those typically go) or they can make an informed decision and learning enough of science to understand it, is quite challenging to many. Add in, long held religious beliefs that were introduced to someone as a child and these beliefs conflict with the TOE and guess what, you have a barrier that gives people a reason to take the lazy way out.

As an example, I am a physiologist and it is amazing how little people know about exercise and diet and how it pertains to the desire of many to lose weight. So many have wrong perceptions of the reality of how the body operates, because they take the lazy way out and want the magical solution. In America, it is the same with the vast majority of scientists agreeing with the TOE and only about 55% of the general public agreeing with it.

Another correlation between agreement with the TOE is; education levels. The higher the education level one attains, the greater likelihood of agreeing with the TOE and also not believing in deities.

some countries teach evolution to kids in primary schools, in america it's usually high school, but many states allow discussion in earlier levels. So what are you saying?

 

[createdtoworship]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has some interesting statistics on this video about religious belief and the general public compared to education level and scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA

link doesn't work, try reposting without the S in the hyper link, I tried it and it works that way. Before I mention this what do you do with the 60% of graduate degree peoples, and scientists (30-40%). So my point is that WHY is there still 30-40% that believe? Also note that he doesn't show what makes up an elite scientist, versus a non elite scientist. I stopped watching at about 2 minutes into it.

 

[florida2]

link doesn't work, try reposting without the S in the hyper link, I tried it and it works that way. Before I mention this what do you do with the 60% of graduate degree peoples, and scientists (30-40%). So my point is that WHY is there still 30-40% that believe? Also note that he doesn't show what makes up an elite scientist, versus a non elite scientist. I stopped watching at about 2 minutes into it.

Elite scientists are those in the National Academy of Science, I believe is the definition he used.

There isn't an answer for the question about why it isn't 0% - he talks about that later in the video. However, the point is about the trend - that belief clearly decreases with education level.

 

[createdtoworship]

Elite scientists are those in the National Academy of Science, I believe is the definition he used.

There isn't an answer for the question about why it isn't 0% - he talks about that later in the video. However, the point is about the trend - that belief clearly decreases with education level.

he has to arbitrarily make that point though, in other words my question is that why is there so many believers among scientists. If humanism, naturalism uniformitarianism, etc were all that there was, then there would be no need for God right? Why are there so many who are kicking against the goads of said theories and believing in a supernatural deity or higher power?

51 percent of total scientists (more percentage of younger scientists believe in higher power)
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

800 scientists that reject dawinism, some elite, some non.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

these are legit surveys, I don't think he mentions his sources for where he got his info from.

 

[bhsmte]

some countries teach evolution to kids in primary schools, in america it's usually high school, but many states allow discussion in earlier levels. So what are you saying?

I'm saying, the higher the education attained, the greater likelihood of agreement with the TOE.

Public’s Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project