Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[razzelflabben]

Because most of those listed were not, in fact, creationists. Isn't that a good enough reason for you?

lol well they were, it was a list of creation scientists...isn't it funny that you don't even have the list and you judge it as not being creation scientist when the list is nothing more than a list of creation scientists...you are proving my point at an alarming rate.

 

[razzelflabben]

Looking at lists of creation scientists and comparing it to the number of scientists in the world, it tells me that they're an extremely small minority. Based on my experience, they're a tiny minority among Christian scientists.

depends on if you are comparing to the same scientific discipline or all disciplines...oh well apples and oranges

 

[Speedwell]

lol well they were, it was a list of creation scientists...isn't it funny that you don't even have the list and you judge it as not being creation scientist when the list is nothing more than a list of creation scientists...you are proving my point at an alarming rate.

I have seen many such lists put out by creationist "ministries" and they are all the same in that regard, with such well-known scientists as Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Lord Kelvin falsely claimed. They also usually claim a large number of non-scientists; dentists, engineers, etc.

So prove me wrong and post your list again.

 

[razzelflabben]

I have seen many such lists put out by creationist "ministries" and they are all the same in that regard, with such well-known scientists as Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Lord Kelvin falsely claimed. They also usually claim a large number of non-scientists; dentists, engineers, etc.

So prove me wrong and post your list again.

But it wasn't from a "ministry" so you still are talking without listening....which is what I said in the beginning that happens way tooooooooo often

No reason to find the list and post it again, you aren't listening anyway and your posts prove it, so it's a meaningless exercise...you have already proven my point.

 

[Speedwell]

I suspect that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims would also accept that the One who created life (and the natural world in which life exists) is also able to intervene, from 'time' to 'time.'

And most of them are not creationists, so what?

 

[Speedwell]

But it wasn't from a "ministry" so you still are talking without listening....which is what I said in the beginning that happens way tooooooooo often

No reason to find the list and post it again, you aren't listening anyway and your posts prove it, so it's a meaningless exercise...you have already proven my point.

I didn't say your list was from a "ministry," just that all the other lists I've seen are from creationist ministries like AiG, ICR and CMI. If you've got a list of creationist scientitsts from a non-creationist source I really will sit up and take notice.. But right now all that is on the table is your unsupported claim that there are many creation scientists.

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't say your list was from a "ministry," just that all the other lists I've seen are from creationist ministries like AiG, ICR and CMI. If you've got a list of creationist scientitsts from a non-creationist source I really will sit up and take notice.. But right now all that is on the table is your unsupported claim that there are many creation scientists.

as I said, your posts all of them show an unwillingness to listen...unless or until that changes I have nothing more I am willing to add to the discussion because quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people NOT listening to each other and reinventing arguments just to make their side look wiser without ever really offering anything of significance. Enjoy your mis communications with others here

 

[Speedwell]

as I said, your posts all of them show an unwillingness to listen...unless or until that changes I have nothing more I am willing to add to the discussion because quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people NOT listening to each other and reinventing arguments just to make their side look wiser without ever really offering anything of significance. Enjoy your mis communications with others here

LOL! That's fine. I just didn't want you to go away thinking that respectable scientists like Newton, Pasteur and Kelvin were creationists.

 

[razzelflabben]

LOL! That's fine. I just didn't want you to go away thinking that respectable scientists like Newton, Pasteur and Kelvin were creationists.

lol I believe what the evidence shows too bad you aren't willing to do the same.

 

[sfs]

depends on if you are comparing to the same scientific discipline or all disciplines.

Well, if you compare the number of creationist biologists to all of the biologists in the world, you'll find that it's a tiny, tiny fraction. If you compare the number of creationist scientist overall to all of the scientists in the world, you'll find that it's still a tiny, tiny fraction. So no, it doesn't really depend.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, if you compare the number of creationist biologists to all of the biologists in the world, you'll find that it's a tiny, tiny fraction. If you compare the number of creationist scientist overall to all of the scientists in the world, you'll find that it's still a tiny, tiny fraction. So no, it doesn't really depend.

I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think this a difficult study to have actually done. It would be very difficult to control bias. How does one determine if someone has a good understanding of Evolution? Apparently they just did a poll. Usually, if someone studies something, one at least broadly agrees with the content. Seldom do people continue to study a concept once they found something unacceptable or that they consider wrong. On average, a person with a good understanding of Christianity or Islam say, is more likely to be a Christian or Muslim. Most who study the Koran or Bible would do so with the understanding that inherent worth is to be found there. Muslims or Christians seldom study the Rig Veda. You would find the odd religious scholar, but broadly this would be the case. I have used religion as an example, but it would hold true for geology or paleontology or any of the sciences.

So intrinsically, someone that has done the effort to be able to have a "good understanding" is probably someone who has already broadly accepted the concept. This study does not really give us much useful information, therefore. It hinges on what is understood as a "good understanding", but I believe the study has inherent problems of presupposition and bias that renders it fairly moot. It would be a different matter entirely if they gave a randomised group instruction in Evolution and then determined their acceptance thereof, but to retroactively try and correlate acceptance with understanding is going to presuppose that they are broadly equivalent, by its very nature.

Gauging someone's knowledge on a subject like evolution, seems a bit trivial actually.

There's all kinds of tricky questions one could, where the "trick" would instantly be recognised by someone who understands the basics, but simply swallowed up by the one that doesn't.

A question like that that comes to mind has been brought to us by the great (*ahum*) mind of Mr Baldwin: "If humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?"

Ask random people in the street that question and the answer will instantly give you a good idea on the level of basic knowledge of the theory.

When they reply with "hmm, that's actually a good question" or "hmm, i don't know" or similar, you know they understand diddly squat.

However, if they would reply with something like "well, if americans come from europe, why are there still europeans?" to point out the flaw of the question - you instantly know that they understand that speciation works by vertical branching into one or more sub-species which then in turn set forth on their own evolutionary path.

Such simple questions and answers can actually tell you a whole lot!

 

[DogmaHunter]

But it wasn't from a "ministry" so you still are talking without listening....which is what I said in the beginning that happens way tooooooooo often

No reason to find the list and post it again, you aren't listening anyway and your posts prove it, so it's a meaningless exercise...you have already proven my point.

The fact of the matter is that such a list is irrelevant.
It matters not how many people, scientist or otherwise, you can find that believe in creationism.

1, 5, 20, 100 million.

It matters not what people believe.
What matters is what they can demonstrate.

Not a single of those "creation scientists" has ever even attempted to pour his/her ideas into a scientific paper, detailing the evidence and the reasoning.

Because there's no such thing. There's only religious beliefs. That's why.

And again, it matters not how many people merely "believe" something - anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

as I said, your posts all of them show an unwillingness to listen...unless or until that changes I have nothing more I am willing to add to the discussion because quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people NOT listening to each other and reinventing arguments just to make their side look wiser without ever really offering anything of significance. Enjoy your mis communications with others here

Talking about never offering anything of significance....

Lists of people who believe a certain thing, especially in science, is like the epitome of insignificance..........

Are you familiar with the argument from popularity?
It's a logical fallacy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

lol I believe what the evidence shows too bad you aren't willing to do the same.

Let's assume there's evidence that someone like Newton believed in creationism.
It would only prove that Newton believed in creationism.

Wheter Newton's belief was accurate, is not demonstrated simply by him having the belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something?

Wait, so you understand that X people believing Y, means diddly squat when the question is if Y is actually accurate??

Then why are you making a big deal out of these lists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

lol well they were, it was a list of creation scientists...isn't it funny that you don't even have the list and you judge it as not being creation scientist when the list is nothing more than a list of creation scientists...you are proving my point at an alarming rate.

Post the list; I try to go through each individual claimed one by one, to see if the people listed meet these qualifications of being a creationist scientist relevant to evolution. These qualifications are as follows:
1. They have to be alive. People generally don't remain active in the scientific community for their entire life, so anyone currently dead likely was more than a decade behind in terms of scientific progress before they went, making their work dated.
2. They have to have active scientific careers. An active scientist may author or co-author more than a dozen papers published in scientific journals every year, even if they have become college professors or deans. A person publishing only 7 papers in a decade long career has had a failure of a scientific career, and a person that hasn't published for multiple years is no longer active. Genetics gets hit the hardest by this; a person that hasn't been active in that field for 5 years will be immensely behind.
3. Their scientific careers have to be relevant to evolution. Even biology has enough in it such that not all biologists have work that's relevant to evolution. For example, on another list of "creationist scientists", there was an immensely qualified scientist there, but his work was almost exclusively in the diagnosis and treatment of fungal diseases.
4. They have to openly be creationists. Sometimes people are put on these lists, and yet when you look them up, you find nothing about them saying that they are creationists.

On the last list I evaluated, I was able to find 2 people that met these qualifications after looking through a couple dozen.

 

[razzelflabben]

The fact of the matter is that such a list is irrelevant.
It matters not how many people, scientist or otherwise, you can find that believe in creationism.

1, 5, 20, 100 million.

It matters not what people believe.
What matters is what they can demonstrate.

Not a single of those "creation scientists" has ever even attempted to pour his/her ideas into a scientific paper, detailing the evidence and the reasoning.

Because there's no such thing. There's only religious beliefs. That's why.

And again, it matters not how many people merely "believe" something - anything.

this again shows a lack of understanding but don't really have the patience for such non sense at the moment....reminds me of the above post by dogma hunter...the same principle applies.

 

[razzelflabben]

Talking about never offering anything of significance....

Lists of people who believe a certain thing, especially in science, is like the epitome of insignificance..........

Are you familiar with the argument from popularity?
It's a logical fallacy.

lol you didn't read my posts if you have to ask this question...just saying, I already talked about this topic and how it is non sense to what is really truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

Let's assume there's evidence that someone like Newton believed in creationism.
It would only prove that Newton believed in creationism.

Wheter Newton's belief was accurate, is not demonstrated simply by him having the belief.

exactly... glad you finally figured that out