|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Key points of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5792 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Percy says:
The vast majority of scientists, perhaps as many as 99%, accept evolutionary theory as the explanation for life's diversity. Thank you for helping me find an alternative study related to what scientists believe about evolution. Could you please give me the source for these statistics? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I wasn't citing any specific study. It was more than sufficient that the survey you cited says that most scientists accept evolution as the explanation for life's diversity.
Your study said that 55% "hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man", while 40% are theistic evolutionists. That means that 95% of scientists accept evolution as the explanation for life's diversity. If you want to discard my "perhaps as many as 99%" claim and go with the 95% figure from your study, I have no problem with that. Though I can support the 99% figure, the difference between 95% and 99% isn't worth quibbling about. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If almost one-half of scientists do not believe the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, then why in the world would we teach this as a fact to our children? But the survey you quotes says nothing of the sort. It says the complete opposite:
quote: Your 40% figure comes from misunderstanding this bit:
quote: Well of course they do. Because by a complete non-coincidence, 40% is also the proportion of scientists that believe in God. And this is logical: if there is a God, then Darwinian evolution was his idea and part of his plan. But there's no general controversy between the theists and the atheists over whether Darwinian evolution occurred: as the article says, they are "almost unanimous". Here's Robert Camp's survey. You may find it informative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What exactly does the scientific community accept as scientific fact? "Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."
--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. "Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). Does this help to answer your question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
What patronizing attitude? If you're going to invoke a supernatural being as an explanation for a problem we haven't solved yet, how is this any different than goddunit? Again, can't you see the obvious intellectual dead-end? Why even go to school or study anything? Goddunit seems to satisfy every question we could ever have.
Why does Jupiter have that great red spot that persists for centuries? Well, goddunit, of course. Why does the wind on Neptune far more powerful than the wind on Saturn even though Neptune is much farther from the sun than Saturn? Well, goddunit, of course. Why do we have wisdom teeth? God works in mysterious ways, I guess. Can't you see the obvious intellectual dead-end? I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5792 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
It appears that you are misquoting the study, so I do not think you should go with the 95% figure.
If you are going to use the figures that I presented then let us attempt to get the facts correct. The study says that:
quote: You found this quote and used it effectively. I quote the article as saying:
quote: The correct conclusion would be that 40% believe that a creator "guided" evolution that resulted in human beings possessing a soul. One of these individuals said, and I once again quote the article:
quote: What did this man say? God uses what we perceive to be "random processes." If God is using these processes, then it is not natural. It is supernatural by definition. We only perceive it to be natural. This is a far cry from the naturalistic evolution that science appears to be proposing. It seems you are attempting to take this 40% that believe in theistic evolution, and drop them into a category that says God started it, and then evolution took over. That is not what the survey says. These people believe that God started the process, God guided the process, and the result were human beings that are different than animals. Human Beings that possess souls. Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given. Edited by Wumpini, : I have rethought portions of this post "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5827 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Wumpini writes
quote:Percy didn't say 40% believe in naturalistic evolution from your article. He said, and I quote quote: Percy didn't say 95% of scientists believe in naturalistic evolution. Theistic or not, evolution is evolution. That's from your own article. http://millionfagmarch.com/ Date: March 30, 2008Time: 11:00 AM Where: Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, KS Requirements: This is not a “gay-only” event. Just come with the ability to send a message to the WBC and Fred Phelps that intolerance is unacceptable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Wumpini writes: One of these individuals said, and I once again quote the article:
quote: What did this man say? God uses what we perceive to be "random processes." If God is using these processes, then it is not natural. It is supernatural by definition. We only perceive it to be natural. I think this interpretation is certainly the way some theistic evolutionists view things. But how do you tell the difference between something natural versus something supernatural that "we only perceive to be natural"? That's a rhetorical question because the only answer is that there is no difference. That God is behind the process of evolution and all else in the universe is a position taken on faith and not a denial that evolution explains the diversity of life. Many theistic evolutionists also believe that God guides all the physical laws of the universe, but this would never be construed as a claim that, for example, gravity is insufficient to explain the orbits of the planets.
Then you started inventing facts like you did with the your 99% statistic. ... How do I know that? Because you have 7,187 posts. If you have not learned that by now, then you never will. The 99% figure is not an invention, and I have 7,187 posts because I'm member #2 (member #1 is reserved for initial software installation) and have been here a long time, virtually since day minus 10 or so when I first began shaking down the software before unleashing it on the Internet in January of 2001. One thing I have learned is how to moderate a discussion board, and letting discussion become personal is a big bugaboo. See the Forum Guidelines, rule 10. Basically it says to be civil and address your criticisms toward the position and not the person. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5792 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
teen for christ says:
Theistic or not, evolution is evolution I thought the theory of evolution was supposed to be a natural process. Are you saying that there is a supernatural "God guided" evolution, and a natural evolution, and the two of these together make up the accepted theory of evolution? It seems that people keep telling me there is no place for God in science. They say there is no place for the supernatural in scientific theories, laboratories, or classrooms. Are you making this comment based upon a religious perspective, or a scientific perspective? Edited by Wumpini, : Added quote by teenforchrist "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Theistic or not, evolution is evolution I thought the theory of evolution was supposed to be a natural process. Are you saying that there is a supernatural "God guided" evolution, and a natural evolution, and the two of these together make up the accepted theory of evolution? It seems that people keep telling me there is no place for God in science. They say there is no place for the supernatural in scientific theories, laboratories, or classrooms. Are you making this comment based upon a religious perspective, or a scientific perspective?
Science is unable to say either way, whether or not god has anything to do with anything. God could be behind everything and the scientific outcomes would remain the same. Objects fall at 9.8 m/s2 whether gravity is pulling them or god's hand is pushing them. The ToE could simply be the way that God goes about creating his creatures. Science doesn't care one way or the other as long as the results are consistant. Also, in Genesis it says that god formed man from the dirt. By 'forming' it could be referring to the process of evolution and by dirt it could be referring to the non-life that the original life arrose from. They don't HAVE to be mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5792 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
letting discussion become personal is a big bugaboo. I am sorry for getting personal. It seems that at times things are very obvious to me, and I cannot understand why others do not see. I have nothing personal against you, just frustration that others cannot see what I see. My original plan was to study some of the evidence for evolution so that I may better understand your point of view. I think I will revert to that plan now. "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
That isn't relevant because the survey was about personal beliefs.
Which is why it was no good for telling you the scientific consensus (which would be the consensus of the scientists working in relevant fields, excluding any unscientific personal belief they might have).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phalanx Member (Idle past 5741 days) Posts: 31 From: Old Bridge, NJ, US Joined: |
That could be. Someone who has no foundation in biology has no right to denounce what the people who actually do come up with. You don't disagree with your mechanic on the best way to replace your exhaust system. Likewise, you don't take what a biologist tells you and decide he must be wrong because you know better. So, find me a biologist who disagrees with the theory of evolution and we can start there.
And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5827 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Going backwards
Wumpini writes
quote:Both, actually. quote:Yes and no. Science is a natural tool whose only purpose is to investigate the natural processes. It cannot say one way or the other if there is a supernatural force behind the natural process under investigation. This is why many people would object to introducing a supernatural element into the laboratory. Science is unable to probe the supernatural element at all and thus nothing is achieved from inserting the supernatural into the laboratory. For example, when chemists first discovered the organic compound benzene, they couldn't figure out why the damn thing had 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens. Physical properties of carbon did not allow a molecule that has 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens to remain stable for long! This was a stumbling block for chemists at the time and it seemed to some people that the whole field of chemistry was about to be overturned. This was a very good time for some people to have pronounce that the reason benzene only had 6 carbons and 6 hydrogens was because of supernatural causes. And I'm sure some people did accept that it was God that allowed benzene to exist in a stable form. People eventually figured out that this was an aromatic compound. Progress was made not because we decided to insert a supernatural element. Progress was made because we decided to not give up with our natural explanations!. Personally, I believe in Christ. Does this mean that I absolutely have to attribute everything to "god-did-it"? Of course not. For all I know, God created the process of evolution and chemical properties for us (his children) to ponder about and figure out everything ourselves. God obviously created this vast universe with vast amounts of information for us to figure out. I believe that the moment we stop exploring possibilities (scientifically) and decide to use the "god-did-it" explanation is the moment we stop celebrating God's creation.
quote:No, I'm saying that faith in God and acceptance of a naturalistic evolutionary process doesn't have to be exclusive. My faith in God is strong enough that I don't need to delude myself that everything must have a supernatural cause in order for me to believe in God. Evolution is inevitable whether you like it or not. We have a natural explanation for the whole process. The theory of evolution has made stunningly accurate predictions. Anti-biotics is produced straight from proposed mechanisms of evolution. All of this has absolutely no bearing on my belief in God. Again, my faith is not so weak that I need to delude myself to believe that God has to have a hand in everything and that anti-biotics was produced by miracles rather than hard working scientists. Added by edit- Kepler was reportedly to have comment that if God was as great as He is suppose to be then his creation must be even greater than we can possibly imagine. How, then, do we reconcile with our over-simplified version of creation and at the same time attribute it to the God who is suppose to be all powerful and all knowing? If you look closely, you will notice that creationism as a movement is based on ignorance. They have an over-simplified version of creation. God poofed everything into existence as-is with his magic wand in 6 days and that's that. What exactly can we get from this model of creation except more ignorance? As a follower of Christ, I encourage you to take a step back and try to learn what you can the scientific progress that we've been able to make the last 150 years rather than continue to dwell on the over-simplified, ignorance based version of creation. The purpose of life isn't to remain ignorant. The purpose of life is to try to figure out God's works and wonders. Your choice, really. Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No problem. You might also want to read through the "Dogs will be Dogs wil be ???" thread, as that also addresses the issue of generating enough change to explain the diversity of life we see, and why creationists viewpoints and evolutionist viewpoints differ on macroevolution.
Meanwhile I have to comment on this remark:
Message 69 To be frank, I value the opinion of a physician about as much as I do that of a custodian when it comes to evolution Maybe this can explain why there is so much division in the scientific world related to the origin of life, and the theory of evolution. Not much value is given to the opinions of those that disagree. Next time you think you need a physician, perhaps all you need is a physicist or a chemist? How about a car mechanic - he can make your car better, yes? The point being that physicians are not biologists, their training is in a different specialty, and this makes them no better than anyone else that does not have a biology degree to be able to talk about biology. Scientific opinions are only valid when they come from scientists that have studied the field ... and even then you are dealing with the argument from authority logical fallacy. Scientists don't trust the validity of the theory of relativity because Einstein said so. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added reply to msg 69 by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024