Whale with hooves

[ViaCrucis]

Pew Research Center has done a poll in the past on views of scientists versus the general public: Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

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 third (32%) of the public.​

Project Steve is another prime example of the support for evolution among scientists: Project Steve

At last count, over 1400 "Steves" had signed their support for this statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.​

I'm curious as to how the number of scientists is so low. 97% sounds like a lot, but imagine if a poll showed that 97% of scientists say gravity happens. Who or what are these other 3% of scientists?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm curious as to how the number of scientists is so low. 97% sounds like a lot, but imagine if a poll showed that 97% of scientists say gravity happens. Who or what are these other 3% of scientists?

-CryptoLutheran

fundies like Kurt wise who are scientists but deny the validity of some of the sciences ( without any evidence that the sciences are wrong by the way) . They also have a nasty trick of sneaking their pseudoscience religious beliefs into the public school system and teaching that instead of science which is illegal in America. So you get some of the next generation who don’t understand science or how it gets its answers . Creation ‘scientists’ rarely do research ( which is what a scientist’s real job is) but they do write reams of essays complaining about geology, astronomy , radiation physics, and the life sciences. The 3% are mainly not life scientists. That number is more like 98.15%of life scientists accept evolution and 0.15% who don’t. (0.15 % crackpot realm because they have no evidence)

 

[AV1611VET]

fundies like Kurt wise who are scientists but deny the validity of some of the sciences ...

A lot of today's science is incompatible with the Bible.

 

[A Realist]

A lot of today's science is incompatible with the Bible.

I think it's the reverse.

 

[Occams Barber]

A lot of today's science is incompatible with the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "today's science".

The sciences which have had most impact in challenging aspects of biblical literalism are now approaching two hundred years old. Geology and palaeontology date back to the early 1800s. Both of these sciences brought the age of the Earth, Noah's flood and, through fossil discoveries, the concept of a fixed range of lifeforms, into question. The Origin of Species was published in 1859 introducing Darwin's concept of evolution. Gregor Mendel was playing with genetics back in the 1860s. DNA was first isolated nearly 80 years ago. Watson, Crick and Franklin modelled DNA almost 70 years ago in 1953, providing the basis for modern genetics. Genetics has independently confirmed the concept of evolution.

According to Gallup biblical literalism is now down to 24% of Americans - and falling. While the numbers themselves don't disprove literalism, they do show that the vast majority of your fellow Christians (and several major denominations) do not see a literal interpretation of all parts of the Bible as essential to their faith.
OB

 

[AV1611VET]

According to Gallup biblical literalism is now down to 24% of Americans - and falling.

Reminds me of:

Luke 18:8b Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Sign of the times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reminds me of:

Luke 18:8b Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Sign of the times.

A higher percentage of people accepting reality does not mean that they lost faith. That is a bit of an insult to the many Christians that do accept evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

A higher percentage of people accepting reality does not mean that they lost faith.

I never said they lost their faith.

But they're sure suppressing it.

They'll go to Heaven, just like anyone else who is saved.

That is a bit of an insult to the many Christians that do accept evolution.

But you worded it as an insult.

I word it as "disobedience."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said they lost their faith.

But they're sure suppressing it.

They'll go to Heaven, just like anyone else who is saved.
But you worded it as an insult.

I word it as "disobedience."

Actually you are insulting those Christians. They are not suppressing faith. In fact I would argue that it is the other way around. If God was the ultimate creator of the world what is wrong with using his creation to tell us how he did it?

 

[Occams Barber]

Reminds me of:

Luke 18:8b Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Sign of the times.

Matthew 7:2
OB

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually you are insulting those Christians.

Then let them worry about it.

If I am insulting them, they'll understand why more than an unbeliever would.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then let them worry about it.

If I am insulting them, they'll understand why more than an unbeliever would.

No, that is another false claim. One does not need to believe to understand. In fact believing can get in the way of understanding. People invest too much in their own personal beliefs and won't let themselves see the obvious flaws in them.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that is another false claim.

If you have something against Christians and what they believe, why don't you just air it out; instead of just saying NO every time I support my beliefs with doctrine?

You don't have a clue as to how Christians think, and I don't appreciate your he-said/she-said style, accompanied by a direct "I don't believe that, anyway" when you get challenged with though-provoking questions.

Now I think I made an excellent point with my question about how many people boarded the Ark, and I'd like you to man-up and admit you're wrong about this Ninth Commandment accusation.

Ditto for the tares among the wheat point I should be getting credit for making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have something against Christians and what they believe, why don't you just air it out; instead of just saying NO every time I support my beliefs with doctrine?

You don't have a clue as to how Christians think, and I don't appreciate your he-said/she-said style, accompanied by a direct "I don't believe that, anyway" when you get challenged with though-provoking questions.

Now I think I made an excellent point with my question about how many people boarded the Ark, and I'd like you to man-up and admit you're wrong about this Ninth Commandment accusation.

Ditto for the tares among the wheat point I should be getting credit for making.

I used to be a Christian, so don't give me that nonsense about not knowing how Christians think. I have nothing against Christians as a group, but when anyone makes false and unjustifiable claims against others I do have a problem with that. And strangely enough it is the one Commandment that those that claim that they are "saved" feel no remorse when they break.

By the way in this part of the forum one should be able to support one's claims with something stronger than doctrine. There are countless doctrines in Christianity. I have seen Christians more than any other group claim that fellow members are "not true Christians". I never was wrong about the Ninth Commandment accusation. If I was still a Christian I might have reported you for the sort of thing that you implied against me. And my response to your question on how many saints entered Noah's Ark was correct. But that is another subject. You fool yourself when you think that you ask "thought provoking questions". The questions only show a rejection of reality. Nothing very thought provoking there at all.

 

[xianghua]

Pew Research Center has done a poll in the past on views of scientists versus the general public: Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

i actually talked about common descent. as we seen- evolution by deifnition doesnt include common descent. so can you prove that most scientists believe in a common descent for all creatures?

 

[xianghua]

View attachment 254682
I don’t know whether you can read it or not , but bananas are angiosperms over there on the left and humans belong in placentalia which is around the middle. All of the Eucarya are cousins. This is a very very very very brief summary of 300 years of the life sciences

so your proof is just common similalrity among living things?

 

[Speedwell]

Reminds me of:

Luke 18:8b Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Sign of the times.

Will he be looking for faith in salvation through himself and his sacrifice for us? Or just faith in the literal inerrancy of scripture?

 

[pitabread]

i actually talked about common descent. as we seen- evolution by deifnition doesnt include common descent. so can you prove that most scientists believe in a common descent for all creatures?

The modern theory of evolution includes common descent. If go back to my prior post, read the 'Project Steve' statement as that explicitly includes common descent.

If you want more, you can find other references for support of the theory of evolution among scientists on Wikipedia: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

Suffice to say, everything I have seen either from polls or statements from scientific institutions suggests the vast majority of scientists accept the modern theory of evolution (which includes common descent). If you want to suggest otherwise, you'll need to present some evidence for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Will he be looking for faith in salvation through himself and his sacrifice for us? Or just faith in the literal inerrancy of scripture?

Both would be my guess.

 

[Speedwell]

Both would be my guess.

He that believeth in me and the literal inerrancy of Genesis, though he were dead, yet shall he live.
And he that liveth and believeth in me and the literal inerrancy of Genesis shall never die.

--From the Gospel according to AV1611.​