% that accept evolution per state

[bhsmte]

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.

It's really not that difficult to understand, if you listen.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's really not that difficult to understand, if you listen.

the facts are one thing, it's the conclusions I disagree with. His logic is faulty, as I have pointed out. I came to a completely different conclusion, with the same evidence. I even pointed out to other, contradicting evidence, and cited sources. He however doesn't cite anything.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

You will always get dissenters, even when something like the TOE is so strongly supported with evidence, it is human nature.

Heck, we have some really educated people still claiming the twin towers were blown up with explosives and the planes that hit the buildings, were only halograms.

Everyone has unique psychological needs and even those who are highly educated, have needs to fulfill them, even when objective evidence goes against them.

 

[bhsmte]

the facts are one thing, it's the conclusions I disagree with. His logic is faulty, as I have pointed out. I came to a completely different conclusion, with the same evidence. I even pointed out to other, contradicting evidence, and cited sources. He however doesn't cite anything.

You are free to come to whatever conclusion you like.

 

[florida2]

the facts are one thing, it's the conclusions I disagree with. His logic is faulty, as I have pointed out. I came to a completely different conclusion, with the same evidence. I even pointed out to other, contradicting evidence, and cited sources. He however doesn't cite anything.

I didn't say that the video was the final word. I'd be very interested to know what his sources are - I'm sure if you can find out if you wanted to.

The conclusions aren't hard with the figures he uses.

90% of public are religious (not necessarily Christian, mind you)
60% of people educated to degree level are religious.

60% is smaller than 90%.

 

[Split Rock]

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

As I said, not very many.

 

[Split Rock]

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?

The more education you have, the less likely you are to reject evolution. Polls have shown that. Once you learn what the theory really is, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss out of hand with creationist talking points.

 

[createdtoworship]

The more education you have, the less likely you are to reject evolution. Polls have shown that. Once you learn what the theory really is, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss out of hand with creationist talking points.

but this is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance:

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:

Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is

Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:

“by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”- above quote from: I don't have faith enough to be an athiest, book by geisler and turek

 

[USincognito]

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

I've never thought to do this before, but I just checked and our own resident scientist Steve is on the list. Bonus points - he was one of the first 400 to sign up.

 

[Split Rock]

but this is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance:

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:

Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is

Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:

“by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”- above quote from: I don't have faith enough to be an athiest, book by geisler and turek

This is nonsense. I am a biologist and I know of NO ONE who is afraid of being skeptical of any theory. Nor do I know any one afraid to admit they are religious. Also, if one were to overturn the theory of evolution that would put you on the cover of Nat Geo... not to mention a Nobel Prize.

 

[hedrick]

According to Wikipedia:

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."

 

[createdtoworship]

This is nonsense. I am a biologist and I know of NO ONE who is afraid of being skeptical of any theory. Nor do I know any one afraid to admit they are religious. Also, if one were to overturn the theory of evolution that would put you on the cover of Nat Geo... not to mention a Nobel Prize.

it has been overturned, multiple times ad-naseum. But this is not the point, the point is that evolutionistic enterprise is very politically motivated. And frankly people are being bullied and intimidated by peer review societies to come up with uniformitarian works. Grant monies, you name it all are based on said naturalistic views.

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

According to Wikipedia:

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."

like I have been saying in my posts, evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time). So good luck telling your boss that we were created by God, you may get fired. (this is how scientists think as per my two quotes a couple posts ago)

 

[USincognito]

Not all the names signed to project steve are in fact steve

Wow. Even for Disco Toot, that is beyond pathetic. Are they unaware that:
- Esteban and Etienne literally mean Steven in Spanish and French? What, if someone was named Степан would that disqualify them?
- Stephanie (and variants) mean the exact same thing - crown - in Greek.
- Steve is a derivative of Stephen just like Bob would be for Robert. Are the Tooters so mad about the success of Project Steve that they are reduced to such pettiness?

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow. Even for Disco Toot, that is beyond pathetic. Are they unaware that:
- Esteban and Etienne literally mean Steven in Spanish and French? What, if someone was named Степан would that disqualify them?
- Stephanie (and variants) mean the exact same thing - crown - in Greek.
- Steve is a derivative of Stephen just like Bob would be for Robert. Are the Tooters so mad about the success of Project Steve that they are reduced to such pettiness?

technically it should be retracted and called "project similar to- steve"

don't you agree?

I have made a very strong point and am unconvinced you present any argument here. I mean how similiar is stephanie to project steve? Stephanie is a dimunitive of steve, however technically it should be called, his and hers. Project steve and stephanie.

I mean really?

when has diminutive, meant "the exact same word"?

 

[USincognito]

it has been overturned, multiple times ad-naseum.

This sentence is false and gibberish at the same time.

But this is not the point, the point is that evolutionistic enterprise is very politically motivated.

Wishful thinking on the part of Creationists.

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

I've asked you previously, what the heck are "peer review societies"?

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.

Please. Do go on.

 

[USincognito]

technically it should be retracted and called "project similar to- steve"

If that's the best Disco Toot has, then they should close up shop. "Steven Murphy goes by Steven professionally and therefore should be disqualified as being a "Steve".

Insipid and pitiable.

eta - You're also confusing diminutive with feminized. I can't think of any examples in English where we use a diminutive though I can think of several in Spanish (Senora/Senorita) and German (brot/brotchen, huhn/huhnchen). Stephanie is a feminization of Stephanos, not a diminutive.

 

[USincognito]

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

So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

 

[createdtoworship]

If that's the best Disco Toot has, then they should close up shop. "Steven Murphy goes by Steven professionally and therefore should be disqualified as being a "Steve".

Insipid and pitiable.

eta - You're also confusing diminutive with feminized. I can't think of any examples in English where we use a diminutive though I can think of several in Spanish (Senora/Senorita) and German (brot/brotchen, huhn/huhnchen). Stephanie is a feminization of Stephanos, not a diminutive.

so are you saying that steve and stephanie are the same person? Not following you here. When has diminutive, meant "the exact same word"? Usually they are different words yes?

 

[createdtoworship]

If that's the best Disco Toot has, then they should close up shop. "Steven Murphy goes by Steven professionally and therefore should be disqualified as being a "Steve".

Insipid and pitiable.

eta - You're also confusing diminutive with feminized. I can't think of any examples in English where we use a diminutive though I can think of several in Spanish (Senora/Senorita) and German (brot/brotchen, huhn/huhnchen). Stephanie is a feminization of Stephanos, not a diminutive.

you will have to try again, I think I won this one. And it looks like just in time, (as you have run out of ammo).