Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Among Scientists, How Broad is Concensus?
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 7 of 27 (507265)
05-03-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by InGodITrust
05-02-2009 3:56 PM


95% of American sceintists believed in biological evolution (either theistic or naturalistic) (which includes persons with any professional degree in fields unrelated to biological evolution, such as physics, computer science, engineering, etc) IAW a 1997 Gallup poll as shown here:
1997 Gallup Poll: Public Opinion
In a more recent gallup poll 75% of postgraduates and 60% of college graduates say that "humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life", while 22% and 37% respectively choose the "created in present form" option as shown here: Almost Half of Americans Believe Humans Did Not Evolve
It seems that most who do not subscribe to biological evolution as representing reality have very little scientific education and/or are religiously motivated.
I also found it ironic that 77% of American Jews (Judaism is the "the foundation of all the religions to its right on the above graph") agree that evolution is the "best explanation for life on Earth" as shown here:
Report: June 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape
Survey
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by InGodITrust, posted 05-02-2009 3:56 PM InGodITrust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2009 9:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 10 of 27 (507270)
05-03-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
05-02-2009 7:13 PM


1085 is the current # of scientists that have signed the Project Steve petition (whose first name is Steve) as shown in this statement:
Project Steve writes:
"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."
also found this interesting
NCSE writes:
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.
found here: Project Steve
Also found this interesting:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible — the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark — convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Currently signed by 11,894 American Christian clergy as shown here: The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy — An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science.
Methodism supports teaching of evolution
Compare this to this deceptive dissent list of 763 scientists (the majority of which have no biological science background) which doesn't even state that these scientists are opposed to biological evolution but rather that they are skeptical of the validity evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations in biological evolution as shown here:
Discovery Institute writes:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
No where do they mention intelligent design, creationism, theism, god or religion in this "dissent list". This list is a fraud and shows the desperate measure the DI and other creationists will go to promote there agenda.
Found here: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism a project of intelligent design's "flagship" the Discovery Institute
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2009 7:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 11 of 27 (507271)
05-03-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
05-03-2009 9:12 AM


I agree with the 99% figure. I did some research a while back and compared the 763 figure of scientists who signed the DI "evolution dissent list" and compared that to the # of biological scientists/researchers in the USA and worldwide. The figures came out to approximately 99.7% "(USA- several hundred thousand compared to 763) biological scientists/researchers and 99.99% (worldwide) who had not signed this publicized "evolutionary dissent list" and by proxy agree to evolution being the underpinning of modern biological science.
It is on my old computer and will see if I can dig it up.
Needless to say the evidence is overwhelming that there is no argument against the reality of biological evolution (only in the ID/creationists mind) in the scientific community. It is only the scientifically uneducated and religiously motivated population that questions evolution.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-03-2009 9:12 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by InGodITrust, posted 05-03-2009 2:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024