% that accept evolution per state

[Queller]

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.

Why? Scientists are a subset of the general population but not an evenly distributed one.

 

[Queller]

those who are employed in the field of empirical sciences (at the phd level)

Here is a list of 1343 (as of 7/7/14) Doctorate-level scientists who accept the evidence for evolution, all named Steve or some variation thereof.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why? Scientists are a subset of the general population but not an evenly distributed one.

evidence? I presume it is due to preconceptions from youthful learning experiences that have proven false, what is your answer?

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is a list of 1343 (as of 7/7/14) Doctorate-level scientists who accept the evidence for evolution, all named Steve or some variation thereof.

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]

What been overturned "multiple times as-naseum?" The theory of evolution? I must have missed the memo on that. I sure haven't seen that here in this forum.


By what? What "enterprise?" Its a scientific theory, not a cabal.


The only bullying going on is by ID proponents who want special treatment. When they don't get special treatment they cry "persecution." Where is the testable I.D. hypothesis? Where are the experiments designed to test the predictions of I.D.? Where are they? They don't exist. I.D. proponents have done nothing but publish in the public sphere and try to politic to get public support, when they should be trying to convince their scientific colleagues with real research. Darwin didn't get special treatment, and neither should Behe.

I sense some fighting tones here so , no reply on my part. Thanx for the conversation.

 

[MikeCarra]

it has been overturned, multiple times ad-naseum.

I'm sensing some anti-science here...

And frankly people are being bullied and intimidated by peer review societies

Could you tell me what a "peer review society" is?

In my years of being a peer reviewer for a number of journals as well as having my work peer reviewed, I don't believe I've run across a "peer review society".

Would you care to enlighten those of us who are not as skilled in the sciences as you?

I have a short list of famous scientists who were shunned from peer review boards because of their nonconformity views. They did later get nobel prizes, but not after losing face with their jobs, their peers and others.

Did they win their Nobels for the topics which they were "Shunned" over? And when you say "shunned" are you sure you aren't confusing that with "skepticism" on behalf of everyone.

Because if everyone just threw up their arms and accepted every revolution in science without question we'd all be really angry that no one had made a cold-fusion car yet.

Just sayin'.

 

[Queller]

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.

If you stopped watching at the two minute mark, how can you possibly say anything about what he says?

 

[createdtoworship]

If you stopped watching at the two minute mark, how can you possibly say anything about what he says?

I didn't. It was a waist of my time frankly, too many errors to correct in the alloted time, so why continue?

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm sensing some anti-science here...



Could you tell me what a "peer review society" is?

In my years of being a peer reviewer for a number of journals as well as having my work peer reviewed, I don't believe I've run across a "peer review society".

Would you care to enlighten those of us who are not as skilled in the sciences as you?



Did they win their Nobels for the topics which they were "Shunned" over? And when you say "shunned" are you sure you aren't confusing that with "skepticism" on behalf of everyone.

Because if everyone just threw up their arms and accepted every revolution in science without question we'd all be really angry that no one had made a cold-fusion car yet.

Just sayin'.

yes they actually did become famous and win nobels over the "topics they were shunned over"

if you have a particular name I have given that I can expand on, I will.

but as far as peer review societies, thats just a name. And Believe me I know how it works. here are some peer reviews from my perspective:

much peer review has been written in the last 5 years about human design, stellar design, and avian design:

Michael Denton peer review 2/25/13 in bio complexity
Denton
Denton
D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman & T. Todd peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute (2009)
The coherence of an engineered world
a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views
A.C. McIntosh peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute [Vol.4, No.2 (2009) 154-169]
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views
McIntosh has published other pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific literature, evolutionnews.org has reviewed here: Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't. It was a waist of my time frankly, too many errors to correct in the alloted time, so why continue?

Which specific errors are you referring to?

 

[createdtoworship]

Which specific errors are you referring to?

for one he doesn't distinguish between hard and soft science. Secondly, He doesn't distinguish between empirical, forensic, or origin science. He throws all science into one category. Thirdly he doesn't define elite scientists, (in the two minutes I watched anyway, which he probably should have defined terms at the get go). So there you have it, thanks for the comment.

 

[Queller]

evidence? I presume it is due to preconceptions from youthful learning experiences that have proven false, what is your answer?

Evidence that scientists aren't evenly distributed among the general population? Are you serious? Only 1.5% - 3% of Americans have a PhD. How do you think that could be representative of the general population?

 

[Split Rock]

I sense some fighting tones here so , no reply on my part. Thanx for the conversation.

Sorry if I asked tough questions you didn't want to answer (or couldn't answer). So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

[bhsmte]

for one he doesn't distinguish between hard and soft science. Secondly, He doesn't distinguish between empirical, forensic, or origin science. He throws all science into one category. Thirdly he doesn't define elite scientists, (in the two minutes I watched anyway, which he probably should have defined terms at the get go). So there you have it, thanks for the comment.

What is your definition of; "hard and soft science"?

Are you refuting the claim that as education increases, belief in the TOE goes up and belief in a personal God goes down?

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

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life#

 

[Queller]

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).

snip due to the eye-watering bad choice of colors from the crayon box.

I already saw your poor attempts at denigrating the list of Steve's. For some reason you don't turn that laser-like critique on the DfD list. I mean, you seem to be OK with mathematicians, electrical engineers, and astronomers pontificating outside their areas of expertise but somehow being named Steven or Stephanie is a problem for the list of Steves.

I take it you disagree with Dembski when he says this;

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. ?

It would seem you would have to disagree with him as that statement contradicts 90% of your argument.

 

[Queller]

I didn't. It was a waist of my time frankly, too many errors to correct in the alloted time, so why continue?

Yes, you most certainly did, right here;

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.

How you can possibly know whether he defines an elite scientist if you only watched 2 minutes of a 9:26 video?

 

[Queller]

Secondly, He doesn't distinguish between empirical, forensic, or origin science. He throws all science into one category.

What do you believe the differences are between the three?

 

[Split Rock]

What do you believe the differences are between the three?

"Origin" science is a term made up by the creationist/I.D. community. I know of no university, college, or high school that teaches an "origin sciences" class.

 

[createdtoworship]

What do you believe the differences are between the three?

for one only the prior of the three is directly observable, the others are related to the study of past events.

 

[bhsmte]

What do you believe the differences are between the three?

Grady follows a pattern. He polishes up on his creationism debate tactics and comes back to the board with another try and he gets exposed every time.

You can set your watch by it.