| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Petee dkj" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2003 11:35:02 AM |
| Object: |
how divided is the scientific community? |
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 02:06:57 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> writes:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Check out _Project Steve_ at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp.
This little joke of a project parodied The Discovery Institute's
habit of amassing lists claiming "We were able to find two hundred
scientists who dissent from Darwinism." In response, the NCSE was able
to find *more PhD's just among men named Steve* who were willing to
agree to the statement, "There is no serious scientific doubt that
evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its
occurrence."
Given that the name "Steve" occurs in only 1% of the population,
it's safe to say that opposite the Discovery Institute's 200 or so
scientists stand about 22,000 working PhD's ready to affirm evolution
and natural selection as the only processes that make sense in light of
the evidence.
Note, as always, that this is an argumentum ad numerman, and if
a million people believe incorrectly it is still incorrect belief. The
proof, as they say, is in the evidence, and the evidence is strongly on
evolution's side.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 07:08:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:06:57 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
"Petee" <dkj> writes:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Check out _Project Steve_ at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp.
Finally, science does a worthwhile project.
;-)
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 04:24:40 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian,
who believes there is a huge divide - something like 50/50
on the validity of evolution.
How can anybody claim to be both part of the "scientific"
community and a psycho who mindlessly follows a strict
religious interpretation that most of Christianity rejects as
retarded?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 02:14:04 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote in message news:<vj7k9vfithu733@corp.supernews.com>...
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
I suppose he includes theologists?:)
If restricted to Biologists (the people who have studied the subject)
I suppose it is like 0/100 (no not 100/0 that has no mathematical meaning)
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen August 2003
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
11 Aug 2003 12:59:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:58:53 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
ejaculated:
On 9 Aug 2003 12:14:04 -0700, (Peter van Velzen)
posted in alt.atheism:
I suppose he includes theologists?:)
If restricted to Biologists (the people who have studied the subject)
I suppose it is like 0/100 (no not 100/0 that has no mathematical meaning)
It's 100:0 - totally different. :)
Isn't that just a ratio, i.e., another way of writing 100/0?
--
"Don't you see Vince, that ***** don't matter. You're judging this the wrong way.
It's not about that. It could be God stopped the bullets, he changed Coke into
Pepsi, he found my fuckin' car keys. You don't judge this ***** based on merit.
Whether or not what we experienced was an according-to Hoyle miracle is
insignificant. What is significant is I felt God's touch. God got involved."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Indefual" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
12 Aug 2003 07:11:57 AM |
|
|
Beowulf wrote:
I suppose he includes theologists?:)
If restricted to Biologists (the people who have studied the
subject) I suppose it is like 0/100 (no not 100/0 that has no
mathematical meaning)
It's 100:0 - totally different. :)
Isn't that just a ratio, i.e., another way of writing 100/0?
They CAN be used interchangeably sometimes. But 100/0 is usually for
probability measures, while 100:0 is used to show the make up of
something (ratios, if you well).
100/0 means 100 parts (out of / for every) 0 parts.
-Shawn P. 'Indefual' Conroy
--
"When I die, I'm donating my body to science fiction."
-Steven Wright
http://www.Indefual.Net/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
12 Aug 2003 09:28:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:59:50 GMT,
(Beowulf) posted in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 04:58:53 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
ejaculated:
On 9 Aug 2003 12:14:04 -0700, (Peter van Velzen)
posted in alt.atheism:
I suppose he includes theologists?:)
If restricted to Biologists (the people who have studied the subject)
I suppose it is like 0/100 (no not 100/0 that has no mathematical meaning)
It's 100:0 - totally different. :)
Isn't that just a ratio
Yes.
i.e., another way of writing 100/0?
No. A ratio is a comparison, not an arithmetic problem.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tic
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton..or \Dances With Wuss" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 08:21:08 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote in message news:vj7k9vfithu733@corp.supernews.com...
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
More like 98/2..and that 2% aren't trained in biology anyway and often have
to compromise their own science to fit with their own beliefs. There is one
Australian YEC who is a geologist. Now in his everyday work he has to use
information depending on the Earth's true age of billions of years...yet
outside of work he claims it's 6000-8000 years old, but still uses his
scientific qualifications to add credibility to his stance. Creationism is
deception from start to finish...and a lot of the time it's themselves who
they lie to the most.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 02:37:56 AM |
|
|
In article <vj7k9vfithu733@corp.supernews.com>, "Petee" <dkj> wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
I don't know of any poll specifically on evolution, but I can tell you
my own experience. I have been working in the biotech-bioresearch
field for 37 years and I have yet to hear one of my colleagues argue
against the validity of evolution. I try to keep up with the
scientific literature in my field, and I have seen many peer-reviewed
journal articles supporting evolution and none arguing against it.
There is no "huge divide".
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 02:09:23 PM |
|
|
In article <vj7k9vfithu733@corp.supernews.com>, Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes
there is a huge divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of
evolution.
Perhaps you should hand him a synopsis of the NCSE's 'Project Steve'.
It's nowhere near 50/50 among scientists, and vanishingly small amongst
biologists.
Thanks.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
20 Oct 2003 09:25:06 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:35:02 -0400, Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Damn. I don't think anybody's bothered with "stats." I mean, it'd be
rather like polling the science community to find out how many "believe"
in gravity.
A good place to start looking for information is the National Academy of
Sciences though:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
And their press:
http://www.nap.edu/
(I'm having trouble with some of their links myself or I'd try to be more
detailed... I'm not sure what's up... could be my silly browser)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
20 Oct 2003 09:51:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:35:02 -0400, Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
National Center for Science Education
http://www.natcenscied.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 10:25:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:35:02 -0400, "Petee" <dkj> posted in
alt.atheism:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.?
100% of scientists in related fields know that it occurs. Everyone
supports his own favorite theory of how it occurs.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 02:54:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:35:02 -0400, "Petee" <dkj> wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
It's more like 99.999999999% in support of evolution, and a few fringe
wackos who dispute it on religious grounds, not scientific ones.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TCS" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 12:08:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:35:02 -0400, Petee <> wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
There is no divide at all. Evolution is an accepted fact, no more debated
than the existance of gravity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 04:26:27 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote
That's what I hear, and I'm glad that's the case, but I'm
currently arguing with a xian who wants me to provide
him with "proof" that this is the case.
Any suggestions?
Ask them to provide "Proof" that they exist. Ask them to
"Prove" the existence of them sun.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter mpainteratattdotnet" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
28 Aug 2003 04:34:51 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote in message news:vj7mfda8ege26@corp.supernews.com...
That's what I hear, and I'm glad that's the case, but I'm currently
arguing
with a xian who wants me to provide him with "proof" that this is the
case.
Any suggestions?
The chances are you will not convince him or her.
The theory of evolution is the best theory for the facts of evolution just
as the theory of gravity is the best explanation for the fact of gravity.
As a scientist you *can't* deny a theory because you don't like it. If you
don't like it and have the education then it is your obligation to falsify
it.
A very large percent of the time that is what science does, tries to prove
that what it believes is an explanation is wrong.
Very few fundy christians understand this. The ones who do and apply it to
their beliefs stop being fundamental, usually keep their faith and find out
what truth is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 03:40:36 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote in message news:vj7mfda8ege26@corp.supernews.com...
That's what I hear, and I'm glad that's the case, but I'm currently
arguing
with a xian who wants me to provide him with "proof" that this is the
case.
Any suggestions?
This may help you out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
The National Center for Science Education conducted a poll of scientists
named Steve, or variants such as Stephanie or Stefan, asking them to sign a
strong pro-evolution statement. They found hundreds of them, and the NCSE
estimates that about 1% of people have that name, so each one signature on
their list probably represents something like a hundred practicing
scientists. At last count the NCSE list had 367 Steves. By comparison, the
single largest creationist list ever put together - which had few if any
practicing qualified scientists, but included television script writers,
lawyers, authors, and ethicists - had 9 Steves.
You might also ask your creationist friend how many top science journals,
like Nature or Science, publish articles in support of creationism.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 12:30:27 PM |
|
|
"Petee" <dkj> wrote in message news:vj7mfda8ege26@corp.supernews.com...
That's what I hear, and I'm glad that's the case, but I'm currently
arguing
with a xian who wants me to provide him with "proof" that this is the
case.
Any suggestions?
There was a poll that was posted a few weeks ago that has the numbers you
need. It clearly showed that people who worked in the field of biology were
most likely to believe in evolution, and the percentages when down as people
were less educated. Maybe someone has the link, I can't seem to find it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 02:56:21 AM |
|
|
In article <vj7mfda8ege26@corp.supernews.com>, "Petee" <dkj> wrote:
That's what I hear, and I'm glad that's the case, but I'm currently arguing
with a xian who wants me to provide him with "proof" that this is the case.
Any suggestions?
Try:
http://www.natcenscied.org/article.asp?category=2
You will find near the bottom statements not only from scientific
organizations, but also from educational, civil libertarian, and even
religious organizations all supporting evolution. You should find
plenty of ammo there.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 05:50:06 PM |
|
|
On 08 Aug 2003 17:08:17 GMT, TCS
<The.Central.Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:35:02 -0400, Petee <> wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
There is no divide at all. Evolution is an accepted fact, no more debated
than the existance of gravity.
Exactly. Creationists are like flat-Earthers trying to "prove" to NASA
that the Earth really is flat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 09:54:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:12:13 -0400, "Petee" <dkj> wrote:
That's what I hear, and I'm glad that's the case, but I'm currently arguing
with a xian who wants me to provide him with "proof" that this is the case.
Any suggestions?
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106idIntro.shtml
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -2.5 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -254 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 12:48:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, it was written:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
http://www.natcenscied.org/newsletter.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/newsletter.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org
The IDrs and the creationists are the ones dwelling on this alleged
division among scientists.
Listen to extremist Xn radio and you will see that the old/new/progressive
(et.al) creationists can't agree amongst themselves.
some of the different cre-flavors are here:
http://members.cox.net/tmccabe/calendar/pages/Fulcher.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david asman" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 11:58:48 AM |
|
|
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
I have taken the liberties of xposting to talk.origins, since this is more
the type of question someone over there can answer, but I'll throw
in my two cents. . .
Well it depends on what scope you are limiting scientists to. If you are
talking about people w/Ph.D.'s in biology that do active research in the field
of biology, I would be willing to bet the number would be about 100%--
afterall evolution is pretty much the backbone of modern biology (if
I have any of this wrong, somebody else is welcome to correct me).
I don't think it should matter what scientists in other fields think,
since I don't think anyone would take a sick pet to a garage mechanic,
much like you wouldn't expect an expert opinion on evolution from a
physicist. However, I would still expect the percentages to be pretty
high for scientists in other fields.
That being said, if you don't have the talk.origins site bookmarked,
do so immediately, as it is an excellent resource for just this sort of topic.
Also you may want to check out the National Center for Science Education,
which also maintains this sort of information.
Link for talk orgins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Link for the NCSE
http://www.ncseweb.org/
Keep in mind that whomever you are debating with may not consider
talk.origins or the NCSE to be reliable sources, saying something
like "those are just evil atheist sites," or somesuch nonsense.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 10:37:04 PM |
|
|
"david asman" <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
I have taken the liberties of xposting to talk.origins, since this is more
the type of question someone over there can answer, but I'll throw
in my two cents. . .
Well it depends on what scope you are limiting scientists to. If you are
talking about people w/Ph.D.'s in biology that do active research in the
field
of biology, I would be willing to bet the number would be about 100%--
afterall evolution is pretty much the backbone of modern biology (if
I have any of this wrong, somebody else is welcome to correct me).
I don't think it should matter what scientists in other fields think,
since I don't think anyone would take a sick pet to a garage mechanic,
much like you wouldn't expect an expert opinion on evolution from a
physicist. However, I would still expect the percentages to be pretty
high for scientists in other fields.
That being said, if you don't have the talk.origins site bookmarked,
do so immediately, as it is an excellent resource for just this sort of
topic.
Also you may want to check out the National Center for Science Education,
which also maintains this sort of information.
Link for talk orgins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Link for the NCSE
http://www.ncseweb.org/
Keep in mind that whomever you are debating with may not consider
talk.origins or the NCSE to be reliable sources, saying something
like "those are just evil atheist sites," or somesuch nonsense.
Dave
Try Gallop it's more like 95 - 5 in favor of evolution and my opinion would
be that a large majority of the 5 percent would never approve of teaching
the creation story in science class. It is a small number of scientist that
show up supporting creation "science".
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 02:46:32 AM |
|
|
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
(Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dunk" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 10:39:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 07:46:32 +0000 (UTC), johac
<jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
A chemist, with a chemistry degree, who doesn't 'get' biology or at
least gives a good imitation of not getting it.
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
I would say that they do, while trying to put up a false front of
appearing somewhat reasonable. But in the end they think that the
planets follow those orbits because invisible angels push them.
Their plan is to undermine science by whatever method is politically
effective.
Dunk
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 08:14:58 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sarah Berel-Harrop" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 10:32:24 PM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0308091715.4ba24bca@posting.google.com...
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there
is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Here's what's strange, though. In DBB, he clearly states
that he accepts the age of the earth & common descent.
Then he comes up with a fairly standard anti-evolution
example. The huge gorge between your neighbor and
yourself, and your neighbor claims to have crossed it
using gradual steps. You do not believe him. This is
an argument against natural selection an evolutionary
mechanism. Yet he does not propose guided evolution.
He abruptly cuts back to irreducible complexity. I don't
see how raising this argument is consistent with a
profession of acceptance of common descent in the
way the typical evilutionist means common descent.
I was really surprised to see it there, but I read the
book in something like half an hour (pressed for
time) so I may have missed something.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 10:14:15 AM |
|
|
Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0308091715.4ba24bca@posting.google.com...
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there
is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Here's what's strange, though. In DBB, he clearly states
that he accepts the age of the earth & common descent.
Then he comes up with a fairly standard anti-evolution
example. The huge gorge between your neighbor and
yourself, and your neighbor claims to have crossed it
using gradual steps. You do not believe him. This is
an argument against natural selection an evolutionary
mechanism. Yet he does not propose guided evolution.
He abruptly cuts back to irreducible complexity. I don't
see how raising this argument is consistent with a
profession of acceptance of common descent in the
way the typical evilutionist means common descent.
I was really surprised to see it there, but I read the
book in something like half an hour (pressed for
time) so I may have missed something.
I interpreted his 'gorge' as any tiny molecular mechanism (e.g.,
flagellum) for which he can not see a step by step evolution, each step
being useful to the organism.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
