blader,
Thanks for finding statistics. I think Morton's demon has been at work in this thread.
Thanks for finding statistics. I think Morton's demon has been at work in this thread.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
unintelligent design.
- Thread starter chickenman
- Start date
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Lanakila,
Do you know of any scientists that are not devoutly religious that believe that evolution is false? The reason I ask is that of all the actual scientists that I know of who doubt evolution, not a single one isn't a very religious person. Furthermore, although they are scientists, I know of not a single one of them who doubts evolution for scientific reasons. They all have theological problems with it. But evolution is not theology; it is science so their doubts do nothing to confirm a scientific falsity of evolution.
It really doesnt matter whether you can find a hand full of current biologists or life scientists that doubt evolution, since being a biologist or life scientist doesnt qualify someone as a mandatory authority on evolution. There are plenty of pathways to a biological doctorate that dont have to cross evolution, especially the older the doctorate is. There is a specific field in the life sciences that deals with evolution: population biology (also known as evolutionary biology). Now if you can find someone who has credentials in that field and considers special creation to be an adequate explanation for the diversity of life, we will be more willing to hear them out.
Do you know of any scientists that are not devoutly religious that believe that evolution is false? The reason I ask is that of all the actual scientists that I know of who doubt evolution, not a single one isn't a very religious person. Furthermore, although they are scientists, I know of not a single one of them who doubts evolution for scientific reasons. They all have theological problems with it. But evolution is not theology; it is science so their doubts do nothing to confirm a scientific falsity of evolution.
It really doesnt matter whether you can find a hand full of current biologists or life scientists that doubt evolution, since being a biologist or life scientist doesnt qualify someone as a mandatory authority on evolution. There are plenty of pathways to a biological doctorate that dont have to cross evolution, especially the older the doctorate is. There is a specific field in the life sciences that deals with evolution: population biology (also known as evolutionary biology). Now if you can find someone who has credentials in that field and considers special creation to be an adequate explanation for the diversity of life, we will be more willing to hear them out.
Upvote
0
Since the statistics blader cited are unsatisfactory to some, I ask if anyone else here has better statistics? Anyone, from either side?
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
I'm drawing a blank. I know a few Jonathans, but I don't remember mentioning any of them on the boards...
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The guy whose "study" is the sole basis for the stats he quoted..didn't you check the source? I guess you didn't....
Upvote
0
Jonathan Moore had a study cited with a figure of .14% support for creation science "among those branches of science that deal with the earth and its life forms."
Other statistics from the source cited by chickenman came from a Gallup poll. I don't know anything about Jonathan Moore, and only about as much as you know about the Gallup organization. So, I assume that you dispute the results tabulated by these two groups. But you say you can't provide anything that is more reliable, and also supports your view?
Other statistics from the source cited by chickenman came from a Gallup poll. I don't know anything about Jonathan Moore, and only about as much as you know about the Gallup organization. So, I assume that you dispute the results tabulated by these two groups. But you say you can't provide anything that is more reliable, and also supports your view?
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Umm..I know considerable more about gallap..so why should we trust JOhn? He is 1. one person and 2. not noteworth that I can tell. Is he some leader in this field?
Upvote
0
Well, I guess I am inclined to trust Moore's results first because they reflect my own observations of the scientists who publish in the life sciences and related areas. Furthermore, the Gallup survey reports similar results (although they apparently used a broader definition of "scientist"). Third, I notice that staff at religioustolerance.org trusted him enough to cite him. Fourth, I have seen no criticism of his methodology that would lead me to distrust him.
So, I ask: do you distrust him? Do you also distrust Gallup? If so, why, and do you have better statistics to cite?
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
"Well, I guess I am inclined to trust Moore's results first because they reflect my own observations of the scientists who publish in the life sciences and related areas. "
And I would say the opposite, thus this point is out.
"Furthermore, the Gallup survey reports similar results (although they apparently used a broader definition of "scientist"). "
Please list or link to these.
"Third, I notice that staff at religioustolerance.org trusted him enough to cite him"
this site has been pretty good at getting definitionst wrong from what I see. So again, this point is out.
", I have seen no criticism of his methodology that would lead me to distrust him.
"
Ah..not a scientific approach at all. Its not accpeted UNTIL its been tested. so again, this point is out.
We are left ONLY with your assurtion that gallup says the same thing. Can you please post and link or cite a book? Thanks.
And I would say the opposite, thus this point is out.
"Furthermore, the Gallup survey reports similar results (although they apparently used a broader definition of "scientist"). "
Please list or link to these.
"Third, I notice that staff at religioustolerance.org trusted him enough to cite him"
this site has been pretty good at getting definitionst wrong from what I see. So again, this point is out.
", I have seen no criticism of his methodology that would lead me to distrust him.
"
Ah..not a scientific approach at all. Its not accpeted UNTIL its been tested. so again, this point is out.
We are left ONLY with your assurtion that gallup says the same thing. Can you please post and link or cite a book? Thanks.
Upvote
0
What a lot of work for a quibble. I'll go back to the site that blader linked to and see if I can find any more information on the Gallup poll they used. If memory serves, they only listed the years it had been performed and the year the data they refer to came from. I'll be right back.
By the way, presumably Moore's work was the test. Since it is nothing more important than a public opinion poll, I doubt anyone has troubled to replicate his results. Do you have cause to doubt them?
I explained to you why I was content with his results. Did you explain why you are not?
By the way, presumably Moore's work was the test. Since it is nothing more important than a public opinion poll, I doubt anyone has troubled to replicate his results. Do you have cause to doubt them?
I explained to you why I was content with his results. Did you explain why you are not?
Upvote
0
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010214c.asp
Not worth $95 to me. This one was from 2001 anyway. I'll keep looking.
Not worth $95 to me. This one was from 2001 anyway. I'll keep looking.
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You'll have to post the results, I cannot login to that site.
"I'll go back to the site that blader linked to and see if I can find any more information on the Gallup poll they used"
The gallup poll used was NOT used for that statistic. Did you not see the clearly marked number 1 for his work. Just a hint, I have read a few gallup polls and they don't agree with him
"I'll go back to the site that blader linked to and see if I can find any more information on the Gallup poll they used"
The gallup poll used was NOT used for that statistic. Did you not see the clearly marked number 1 for his work. Just a hint, I have read a few gallup polls and they don't agree with him
Upvote
0
Of course I saw that the .14% statistic for scientists in related fields was attributed only to Moore.
If you read on a few paragraphs, you will see that Gallup was cited for this statistic:
Belief system
Group of adults: Creationist view....Theistic evolution.....Naturalistic evolut...
Everyone:...............44%..........................39%...........................10%
Scientists:...............5%............................40%...........................55%
For the 3rd time, if you have statistics you think are more accurate, post them. Please. We can compare notes about the relative validity of the different sources when we have a source that contradicts the two used in the religioustolerance.org report.
Upvote
0
Here's another:
They also cite gallup, but do not mention what year. The copyright on the article is 1999 if that means anything.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html
They also cite gallup, but do not mention what year. The copyright on the article is 1999 if that means anything.
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
and according to this then the majority of americans want creationism taught in school along with evolution as well? Also this was a 1982 poll that's over 20 years old!
If you look closely at that site (post 216) you will see that gallap was NOT attirbuted to that scientist stat.
So jerry, now you're telling me you trust 20 year old info? Do you remember what was going on at that time?
If you look closely at that site (post 216) you will see that gallap was NOT attirbuted to that scientist stat.
So jerry, now you're telling me you trust 20 year old info? Do you remember what was going on at that time?
Upvote
0
And more than half who think so indicated that they would like it mentioned as a religious view not science.
1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:
<snip>
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%
I've been looking closely since we began this conversation. If the 5% science stat is attributed, it is attributed to Gallup. ABC definitely attributes the same stat to Gallup.
Moore's is the LIFE science stat (.14%) - reasonable, since you can expect more physicists and chemists to be friendly to something that doesn't directly attack the science they do.
1997 is 5 years ago. This doesn't seem to be a statistic that has been chaning rapidly: according to the article Bishop found that basically the same results were gotten in 1982.
In 1997 I was living in Mobile, AL and reading a lot of Kerouac. 1982 was pretty uneventful for me. I was ten years old at the time.
So, when are you going to cite some statistics that show how there are gobs of scientists lining up to throw out the last 100 years of scientific concensus (for no apparent reason)?
By the way - how is 1982 over 20 years ago? Isn't this still 2002?
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
"If the 5% science stat is attributed, it is attributed to Gallup. ABC definitely attributes the same stat to Gallup. "
And this science degree contains computer science correct?
"1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:
"
so we are switching varibles in midstream? why not find another gallup poll please.
Regardless the data is quite outdated. Your 1997 poll, I"m sure includes non real science degrees, thus my statements. For me to take that poll as valid I would like it broken down into areas of degrees.
As for the 1982 poll, the figures HAVE changed, that is why I pointed out how old it was. In 1982 you were peer-pressured into saying evolution is right or blackballed out of science all together. its not as bad not, but its still there. That is why the stats show that.
I'll hit my gallup books tonight after I get home and post some stats.
And this science degree contains computer science correct?
"1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:
"
so we are switching varibles in midstream? why not find another gallup poll please.
Regardless the data is quite outdated. Your 1997 poll, I"m sure includes non real science degrees, thus my statements. For me to take that poll as valid I would like it broken down into areas of degrees.
As for the 1982 poll, the figures HAVE changed, that is why I pointed out how old it was. In 1982 you were peer-pressured into saying evolution is right or blackballed out of science all together. its not as bad not, but its still there. That is why the stats show that.
I'll hit my gallup books tonight after I get home and post some stats.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
