How many scientists don't believe in evolution?

[TRVL ONE]

How many people with a PHD in a field of science that have extensively studied evolution don't believe in evolution?

I would like the people who believe in evolution to find who this people are and debate with them. I would like to see what that online debate looks like.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that many scientists don't believe it but would never admit it.

 

[JackRT]

Claim:

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

 

[inquiring mind]

Claim:

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

Wouldn't this be like trying to get professional pilots to admit they'd seen a UFO?

 

[JackRT]

Wouldn't this be like trying to get professional pilots to admit they'd seen a UFO?

Not at all, professional and military pilots regularly report UFOs.

In the same way, professional scientists remain always skeptical. They can make their reputation with a brand new discovery and they can also make it by disproving an old theory. Evidence is the key.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that many scientists don't believe it but would never admit it.

Sorry about your fall.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How many people with a PHD in a field of science that have extensively studied evolution don't believe in evolution?

Very few.

I would like the people who believe in evolution to find who this people are and debate with them. I would like to see what that online debate looks like.

Here's an example from quite some time ago, but Duane Gish (Ph.D. biochemistry) was one of the foremost debaters in favor of Young Earth Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that many scientists don't believe it but would never admit it.

They probably want to keep their jobs.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would like the people who believe in evolution to find who this people are and debate with them. I would like to see what that online debate looks like.

Just go rattle a hornet's nest.

You'll get more action.

 

[JackRT]

They probably want to keep their jobs.

That's likely true of a few.

 

[tas8831]

How many people with a PHD in a field of science that have extensively studied evolution don't believe in evolution?

I would like the people who believe in evolution to find who this people are and debate with them. I would like to see what that online debate looks like.

It looks like what we have now - a bunch of religious fanatics with web sites and a built-in audience spewing nonsense and nitpicking real science to prop up their beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that many scientists don't believe it but would never admit it.

I'm not going out on a limb here and state outright that many of the professional creationists earned degrees solely for the purpose of lending weight to their creationist views - Wells and Sarfati come to mind. Both did a minimal amount of work to earn a degree, then went straight into professional creationism - 'Look at me, a YEC with a degree! there MUST be something to it!'

Nor am I going out on a limb when I suggest that many professional creationists outright lie about their 'conversion' to creationism upon doing 'research' - Steve Austin comes to mind (claimed to have been converted to YECism after studying the Mt.St.Helens eruption, yet wrote creationist essays under the name 'Stuart Nevins' for at least 4 years prior to the eruption), all to 'witness' to the masses.


Nor am I going out on a limb when I state that many creationists simply lie about things to prop up their faith - Duane Gish comes to mind (the Bullfrog incident is a prime example). Another prime example is David Menton's essay on Tiktaalik.

Nor am I going out on a limb when I state that creationists embellish their credentials to impress layfolk into thinking that the must be correct about the things they claim. This is sometimes subtle - Jon Wells' claim to be associated with UC Berkely is one example. Other times, it is more egregious, such as when Joseph Mastropaolo, creationist kinesiologist, allows himself to be referred to as a "rocket scientist" because he was a consultant to NASA for the design of the capsule seats in the early manned space missions. Then there are the usual unwarranted accolades placed on nearly all creationists with degrees - "world renowned", "leading expert", these sorts of things. Then there are the diploma mill titles - Jerry Bergman's is classic.

Nor am I going out on a limb to suggest that if creationists scientists are reluctant to 'out' themselves, there is a good reason - their competence will be questioned, just as a mathematician that 'doubts' the veracity of the Pythagorean theorem would be, or a physician who abides by the bodily humor notions of the middle ages. As it should be.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that many scientists don't believe it but would never admit it.

Look daddy !! It is a wolf with three legs. Poor thing. At least it lived to ripe old age.

 

[lasthero]

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that many scientists don't believe it but would never admit it.

And they’re so afraid that they won’t even admit it on anonymous surveys...

 

[grasping the after wind]

How many people with a PHD in a field of science that have extensively studied evolution don't believe in evolution?

I would like the people who believe in evolution to find who this people are and debate with them. I would like to see what that online debate looks like.

I would expect that a scientist would not put it that way. Rather than saying "I believe in Evolution", I would expect a scientist to say " I am convinced that evolution takes place as Darwin argued" or some such similar type of statement. IMO belief is not a word that ought to be used in referring to scientific study. To "believe in" something is to express faith in a thing not to express a conviction that the thing occurs or exists in some way. I believe in God : I am convinced that climate change happens. I don't place my trust in climate change or evolution I simply acknowledge my conviction that they are real things not fantasies and I do so based upon scientific inquiry into the matters that I have been given access to. I acknowledge my conviction that God is real but not because of scientific study so I might say "I believe there is a God" but since I also place my trust in Him , I say " I believe in God " because the one is more precisely what I believe than the other.