BIG-o-try

[forufes]

99% of scientists accept evolution

ta-da, just like that.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/15439-welcome-creationists-to-science-forums-and-debate/

2nd post near the end.

 

the quoted sentence is unfounded, unscientific, and misleading(as was intended), at best, we'll say it was a mistake.

so i followed the rules, reported it.

nothing happened.

well maybe i should be thankful i was left unscathed? i wasn't, i became the geniua pig for a new forum "feature" of having your posts "inspected" before being posted. i passed the test phase safely, thank god.

 

i also PMed an admin, he rightfully said there's nothing in the forum rules against being wrong, which is strange with all the demands of scientific peer reviewed articles with refrences for any word you put down the wrong way in a discussion, but yup, according to the rules, you're allowed to be wrong.

 

um, for how long? is what i wanna know in this thread.

i think i reported the post at least 3 days ago[?]

 

oh yeah, i was indirectly told i should've posted my correction in the thread itself, and my report was considered an "abuse" of the report function, yeah i know, wtf.

Edited August 1, 2010 by forufes

[Klaynos]

Did you ask for a reference?

[swansont]

Did you ask for a reference?

 

It's a locked thread, so that's not possible.

 

————

 

 

The "report thread" feature is for reporting rules violations — flaming, spam, copyright or plagiarism problems, etc. Not for objections concerning the factual content.

 

 

Anyway,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

The number is going to depend on whether you are interpreting "scientists" as "all holders of a science degree" or "people with degrees who work in the field of biology." The latter will have a higher percentage. It will also vary by location, since the US fosters more tolerance for crackpottery.

 

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution. 99±1% is accurate (for biologists). Why the quibbling — is it over the lack of an error estimate? I don't understand how the tag of bigotry comes into play.

[forufes]

 

 

The "report thread" feature is for reporting rules violations — flaming, spam, copyright or plagiarism problems, etc. Not for objections concerning the factual content.

ok, it's my first time using the button anyway, considering the point of the thread was telling people not to speculate, and then speculate in it, and also lock the thread, don't know.. was the only thing that came to mind.

but no problem.

 

the two links you provided are naturally biased, so they cherry picked their facts, but again, no problem;

Anyway,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy' date=' professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22']

good o'le wikipedia quotes some guy by the name of Brian Alters, who happens to be an evolution hothead; in wikipedia's words "an expert in the evolution-creationism controversy". as saying that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution", i wonder if a certain other guy by the name "Jesus Rocks" was heard saying that "99.9 percent of scientists accept creationism", if his statement be mentioned in an unbiased open encyclopedia like wikipedia, and whether he would be cited as an "expert in the evolution-creationism controversy" as well. but putting their lovely display of factuality aside, they DID say that he stated it, and i'm sure if he had more than his own words to back it up they would've showed it, which they didn't(so why put it up in the first place?), but here in scienceforums, it was stated very boldly as a fact, that hey, 99.9% of scientists DO accept creationism, not that it's the opinion of some guy somewhere expressing his freedom of speech.

 

that's one.

the second;

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

1-they said 5% are creationists--->95% are evolutionists.

2, and most importantly- they said in the USA.

their statement in NO WAY translates to 99.9% of scientists accept evolution. so the reference invalidates the statement.

 

The number is going to depend on whether you are interpreting "scientists" as "all holders of a science degree" or "people with degrees who work in the field of biology." The latter will have a higher percentage.

true, which is why the pass the latter as the former, to boost the number.

It will also vary by location, since the US fosters more tolerance for crackpottery.

:lol:

saudi arabia?

pakistan?

egypt?

middle east?

north africa?

maybe even south east asia..

those countries don't contain scientists? do you think they all accept evolution??? i'm sure in those countries that 95% would be the other way around, no kidding.

 

but if it's the other way around, then they simply are NOT scientists.

 

well i'm sorry folks, but we do not label people as scientists or not based on their stance towards evolution, while i'm sure holders of one side would be eager to discard the other side as crackpots, just imagine what a biology teacher would tell his students in a christan school about evolution, and compare it to what a bio teacher in a secular school would tell his students about creationism. i'm sure the resemblance would be striking.

 

but swansont, for us not to be distracted by the criteria to define a scientist, we'll just take the one used by those who conducted the studies and gave the statistics.

 

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution. 99±1% is accurate (for biologists). Why the quibbling — is it over the lack of an error estimate?

i disagree, and i have the right to.

you are making a claim. in a science forum, you should back it up with a scientific peer reviewed...bla bla bla. you can't ask us to follow standards you don't hold yourself to.

I don't understand how the tag of bigotry comes into play.

 

bigotry;

the attitudes, behaviour, or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice; intolerance

seems to cover how creationism is dealt with here nicely.

the thread was a sticky, something of a subfora guidelines and rules.

it was sarcastic in it's tone and many times not so nice, contrary to what's preached by the forum rules, to which creationists seem to be a special case.

it was one of a humility lecture on how unfounded the nature of creationism arguments are, and how that makes them not so scientific, because science is based on facts which can be proved and demonstrated, not the right to spout whatever you want as truth.

and in the process, it very simply states an unfounded statement, which ironically is used to criticize unfounded statements. but hey, as long as it's creationists on the receiving end..it's ok.

the thread was locked...why?...why????.. if not to tell the creationists who's boss? that we put the rules and you follow, we slap and you turn the other cheek?

now lets say i'm dramatizing and that none of this is true, that it was all in good intentions and i'm making things look worse than what they are, and that it was very simply a mistake, aren't people allowed mistakes?

well yeah sure...but it's been 3 days and that "mistake" isn't corrected, and the convict who dared point it out got himself an experimental leash to try on, with an unspoken message of...

...everything...but bigotry.

 

yyyyyup, i'm the bad guy, you're all good and moral.... speak of self delusion or tyranny of the majority. you get too busy diagnosing others you grow immune to diagnosing yourself.

[Sisyphus]

forufes:

 

How about this?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

Or this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

[swansont]

I can't help but notice that you left out some details

 

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

 

So there was a poll, which starts us out at 95%, but that number includes engineers and computer scientists. Numbers are given to back up the 99% value.

 

 

seems to cover how creationism is dealt with here nicely.

the thread was a sticky, something of a subfora guidelines and rules.

it was sarcastic in it's tone and many times not so nice, contrary to what's preached by the forum rules, to which creationists seem to be a special case.

it was one of a humility lecture on how unfounded the nature of creationism arguments are, and how that makes them not so scientific, because science is based on facts which can be proved and demonstrated, not the right to spout whatever you want as truth.

and in the process, it very simply states an unfounded statement, which ironically is used to criticize unfounded statements. but hey, as long as it's creationists on the receiving end..it's ok.

the thread was locked...why?...why????.. if not to tell the creationists who's boss? that we put the rules and you follow, we slap and you turn the other cheek?

now lets say i'm dramatizing and that none of this is true, that it was all in good intentions and i'm making things look worse than what they are, and that it was very simply a mistake, aren't people allowed mistakes?

well yeah sure...but it's been 3 days and that "mistake" isn't corrected, and the convict who dared point it out got himself an experimental leash to try on, with an unspoken message of...

...everything...but bigotry.

 

yyyyyup, i'm the bad guy, you're all good and moral.... speak of self delusion or tyranny of the majority. you get too busy diagnosing others you grow immune to diagnosing yourself.

 

The thread was locked because it was not meant as a discussion. We don't do creationism here; as a discussion it's been covered in ample detail elsewhere and the claims thoroughly debunked. It's unlikely there is any new ground to cover. Creationism as scientific inquiry is on the same scrap heap as astrology and other pseudoscience. Calling it bigotry is misguided; science isn't tolerant of crap. It's not a democracy.

 

The "mistake" hasn't been corrected, partly because you have not made the case that it is a mistake.

[forufes]

I can't help but notice that you left out some details

why would i include such details?

the statement in the speculation thread didn't say scientists of biology and earth, it said scientists only, and that's what i believe i'm discussing here.

 

note that even if it said scientists of biology and earth, it would still be wrong, or at least, unfounded, for the references speak of the US only.

 

 

 

The thread was locked because it was not meant as a discussion. We don't do creationism here; as a discussion it's been covered in ample detail elsewhere and the claims thoroughly debunked. It's unlikely there is any new ground to cover. Creationism as scientific inquiry is on the same scrap heap as astrology and other pseudoscience.

i don't disagree much here, while creationism's affirmative claims might not be called science to begin with, for science is experimental, and creationism for the most part isn't, i find scientific criticism of evolution by creationists to be fascinating and definitely worthwhile, i'm very interested in Behe's irreducible complexity for example, along with other scientific arguments "attacking" evolution.

Calling it bigotry is misguided; science isn't tolerant of crap. It's not a democracy.

i didn't call science rejecting creationism bigotry, but the way scienceforums rejects creationists is, bigoted.

if speculating while telling them not to speculate isn't bigotry, i don't know what is.

The "mistake" hasn't been corrected, partly because you have not made the case that it is a mistake.

orly?

 

that means you are saying one of the following.

-in scienceforums 95=99.

-in scienceforums, a parent set is equal to one of its subsets, given that they don't contain the same number of elements.

 

it also means-if i haden't made the case that it is a mistake- that a statement like this;

"scientists are American"

true, eh?

 

then you may be right, it may not be bigotry after all, just plain stupidity, partly.

 

i'll reiterate this slowly;

-the wikipedia reference cites an opinion.

=taking an opinion as fact is fallacy.

 

-the talk origins reference cites a study limited to the scientists in the US, and gives two different distinct percentages, which are not the same nor are they interchangeable, for if they were, they wouldn'tve bothered with them both. combined with the original constraint their data can be phrased into the following facts;

= 95% of scientists who are in the United States of America accept evolution.

= 99.85+% of scientists who are in the United States of America and working in life and earth sciences accept evolution.

 

i wonder how any of these references translate into:

99% of scientists accept evolution

 

capiche?

 

hope we stop embarrassing ourselves and accept and fix our mistake asap, which if we don't doesn't just say we make mistakes, but says we defend them and stand up for them too.

 

an apology would be nice as well

a couple of rep points for my constructive efforts won't go unnoticed either

 

---

Merged post follows:

uh, merged post....?

forufes:

 

How about this?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

i've discussed that.

Or this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

i didn't find anything in it supporting the statement in the OP.

 

note that i am saying the statement is wrong, not what it was meant to prove.[not that i agree with the latter either, but that's another story]

Edited August 2, 2010 by forufes

[swansont]

why would i include such details?

 

Indeed. It would be inconvenient for you to do so.

 

But that's one thing which separates science from politics — presenting all of the facts vs presenting only the facts which support your case. IOW, you are making a political argument.

 

 

 

 

i didn't call science rejecting creationism bigotry, but the way scienceforums rejects creationists is, bigoted.

if speculating while telling them not to speculate isn't bigotry, i don't know what is.

 

SFN isn't a democracy, either. Policy is set by the admins, with moderator input, and carried out by the staff.

 

 

orly?

 

that means you are saying one of the following.

-in scienceforums 95=99.

-in scienceforums, a parent set is equal to one of its subsets, given that they don't contain the same number of elements.

 

 

No, read it again. The 95% number includes e.g. computer scientists and engineers. Once you account for only scientists, the percentage is higher. If you restrict it to scientists in the field, it's higher still. I don't see a conflict here. 99% is approximately correct; we're unlikely to get a more precise result.

 

 

 

The "scientists who believe in creationism" lists have ~ 600 names on them (and includes non-scientists), and the "Project Steve" list, mentioned by Sisyphus, is up over 1000. "Steves" make up about 1% of the population, so bingo, we expect to have roughly 1% of scientists believing in creation and 99% who support evolution. Additionally, I went to the NSF site ( http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08321/content.cfm?pub_id=3785&id=2 ) and found that between 1970 and 2006, more than 820,000 science and engineering PhD's were awarded in the US, with 661,000 of them being science degrees. That should give us a rough idea of the number of scientists with PhD's working in the US today. The creationist camps can only muster roughly a thousand names. That 99% number looks pretty solid to me.

 

 

What number would you use, and what impact would it have on the statement?

[eleven]

>drama

/popcorn

[D H]

>drama

/popcorn

No thanks. I don't like stale popcorn, and this is some mighty stale popcorn. The complaint is about a 5.5 year old thread. Is 5.5 year old popcorn even safe to eat? I thought it mutates into something nasty in that amount of time. Suppose that I decide to rearrange my living room after 5.5 years. If in the midst of that rearrangement, my dogs found a 5.5 year old stash of popcorn I would hope they would refrain from eating it. Yech.

 

Certainly there must be a statute of limitations on threads. There was nothing to report here. forufes is raising a stink where no stink exists.

Edited August 2, 2010 by D H

[cypress]

One of the realities about polls is that the results are heavily influenced by how the questions are asked. The 1991 Gallup poll has been significantly improved to get a better understanding of what "scientists" or better what those with technical degrees actually think about this topic. A more recent poll from 2004 finds that 68% of those in the US with natural and applied science degrees do not accept the idea that life as we know it today is a product of natural processes alone. This percentage drops away as one migrates closer to biology but it is far different from the 99.9% and the 95% numbers being cited. Another poll of Physicians only put the number at 60% disagreeing with a natural only explanation. One of the biggest reasons for the difference is that "evolution" is a term that has a broad set of definitions. If by evolution one means change over time you get the 99.9% number if by evolution one means that all observed diversity is a product of genetic mutation and natural selection, one gets a number of about 60%.

 

All this to say that forufes has a point that the posting is misleading and one might consider revising it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Could you link to that 2004 poll? The only 2004 poll I could find was this one:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

 

which shows postgraduates of any degree field having a 65% rate of acceptance of evolution.

[Moontanman]

The reality of this is that the further you go outside any scientists area of expertise the further you get away from their opinion being any better than anyone else who has no special knowledge of that particular subject. So it makes sense that 65% of all scientists might disagree with evolution but scientists who's expertise actually include the subject of evolution go closer to 99% It's like asking a brain surgeon what the funny noise is under the hood of my car and thinking his opinion is as good as the opinion of the mechanic who specializes in that particular car....

 

BTW anyone who thinks that creationists are less than respected here should go to a creationist site and try to assert science... good luck with that....

Edited August 3, 2010 by Moontanman

[iNow]

Here ya go:

 

http://people-press.org/report/528/

 

And here:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=474

 

Levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%).

 

 

 

And here are a few neat breakdowns:

 

 

 

 

However, while roughly 80% of americans believe in god, only about 30% of scientists do.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans

 

 

 

In terms of trends:

 

http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/growth-of-atheism.html

 

Interest in atheism is surging all over the world - even in the United States which had been resistant to it for so long. The reality is that people in modern society are rejecting the concept of "god" more than ever before, and this is really starting to frighten major religious institutions.

 

In a 2008 Gallup survey, 15 percent of Americans claimed no religion at all. That is up from only 8% in 1990. That is almost a doubling in less than 20 years. That is stunning growth! In fact, the "non-religious" now outnumber all religious organizations in the United States except the Catholics and the Baptists.

 

 

Please note, the above was taken from a site whose core purpose is trying to defend religion and belief... hardly able to be dismissed by believers as some liberal think tank or atheist propaganda group.

 

 

Here is another write-up on this:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

 

These dramatic shifts in just 18 years are detailed in the new American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), to be released today. It finds that, despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990.

 

<...>

 

So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

 

<...>

 

The ARIS research also led in quantifying and planting a label on the "Nones" — people who said "None" when asked the survey's basic question: "What is your religious identity?"

 

<...>

 

Oregon once led the nation in Nones (18% in 1990), but in 2008 the leader, with 34%, was Vermont, where Nones significantly outnumber every other group.

 

Meabh Fitzpatrick, 49, of Rutland, Vt., says she is upfront about becoming an atheist 10 years ago because "it's important for us to be counted. I'm a taxpayer and a law-abiding citizen and an ethical person, and I don't think people assume this about atheists."

 

Not all Nones have made such a philosophical choice; most just unhook from religious ties.

 

Diane Mueller, 43, of Austin, who grew up Methodist, says she's simply "totally disengaged from the church and the Bible, too." Sunday mornings for her family mean playing in a park, not praying in a pew.

 

Ex-Catholic Dylan Rossi, 21, a philosophy student in Boston and a Massachusetts native, is part of the sharp fall in the state's percentage of Catholics — from 54% to 39% in his lifetime.

 

Rossi says he's typical among his friends: "If religion comes up, everyone at the table will start mocking it. I don't know anyone religious and hardly anyone 'spiritual.' "

 

 

 

Here is the actual 2008 survey in further support of my points: http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/NONES_08.pdf'>http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/NONES_08.pdf

 

And a summary of the highlights: http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

 

 

All the indicators show that the major growth in the None population occurred during the 1990s, with annual growth averaging nearly 1.3 million people. Nones doubled their numbers and contributed almost 47% of the total national population growth in that decade. The growth rate has slowed at the beginning of the 21st Century. At their current rate of increase in the 2000s, Nones are adding to their ranks about 660,000 adults each year. The rate of growth of the Nones still exceeds the national rate of population growth.

 

<...>

 

Nones exist in every geographic region in the U.S., making up anywhere from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 adults. In many ways, Nones are the invisible minority in the U.S. today —invisible because their social characteristics are very similar to the majority. Intriguingly, what this suggests is that the transition from a largely religious population to a more secular population may be so subtle that it can occur under the radar as happened during the 1990s. In the future we can expect more American Nones given that 22% of the youngest cohort of adults self-identify as Nones and they will become tomorrow’s parents. If current trends continue and cohorts of non-religious young people replace older religious people, the likely outcome is that in two decades the Nones could account for around one-quarter of the American population.

 

 

Yep... and I'm just gonna keep going, because I'm uber-tired of stupid on the internet being so prevalent...

 

 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/elisabeth_cornwell/2010/01/helping_haiti_because_it_makes_us_feel_good.html

 

There is often such a simplistic view of Darwin's theory that many people argue such generosity toward others, especially strangers, is impossible.

 

That's where the religious apologists step in. Atheism, many claim, is just too 'selfish' a world-view to do good.

 

The real facts, however, are very different.

 

<...>

 

Over the past week, I've witnessed an incredible outpouring of atheist generosity. On Jan. 16, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) along with a dozen other secular organizations and bloggers formed Non-Believers Giving Aid (NBGA), a permanent fund set up to assist secular disaster relief organizations. In the case of Haiti: Doctors without Borders and the International Red Cross.

 

The word went out across the internet and on the first day of operation the fund reached over $100,000. That giving has continued and now NBGA has reached over $400,000 with all the monies going for relief aid. At the present rate we shall reach half a million dollars soon. But even more stunning than the money are the numbers of donors. Over 9,000 people giving from over 50 different countries with an average donation of around $30. While there have been a few large donations, the vast majority come from people identifying themselves as non-believers who simply want to do something, even if they don't have much themselves.

 

But it is not just disasters that spur Atheists on to action. I just spent Sunday morning with a group in Austin, Texas, called Atheists Helping the Homeless. As we handed out socks, gloves, soap, and such things to the 40 or 50 homeless people at 8.00am, a few yards away under the freeway was a church group setting up to give out food. Not without the sermon first, however. I never heard a single AHH volunteer ask if anyone was an atheist, tell them why they should be an atheist, or that atheism would lead them to happiness.

 

It is not that we atheists are claiming the moral high-ground. We commend our religious counterparts for giving aid. It is just that we admit we do it because it makes us feel good. Some people might criticize our motive, but then they open the door to the criticism that doing good to get into heaven is not exactly a selfless act either.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7055062/Simon-Cowell-not-father-of-Jasmine-Lennards-child.html

 

“Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for 'making a pact with the devil’,” he claims.

 

“We do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity. The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches.”

 

 

http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/01/19/bowling-for-atheists-haiti-proves-that-nonbelievers-care-too/

The campaign is called Non-Believers Giving Aid (http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/) and is set up through PayPal. Richard Dawkins has generously offered to cover all the PayPal fees (up to $10,000) and the Skeptics Society got things started off with a bang with a $1000 donation. Within minutes of it’s launch on Saturday morning, tens of thousands of dollars started pouring in as members of the other participating groups (Sam Harris’ The Reason Project, The James Randi Educational Foundation, Atheist United, Atheist Alliance International, and many others) jumped in without hesitation. (All monies go to Doctors without Borders and the International Red Cross—you choose.)

 

In less than half a day we passed the $50,000 mark, $100,000 in less than 24 hours, $175,000 by Sunday morning, and over a quarter of a million dollars by sunup Monday morning, and still climbing as I post this commentary. We’ll easily surpass a million dollars within days. Not a bad showing! But beyond the aid needed by the Haitians, why does this matter? Why do I need to brag about our generosity? Because people tend to believe that religious people are more generous than nonreligious people, and so it is important that we show our true colors now. As I noted for the press release issued by Dawkins’ foundation: “It’s all well and good to say that we nonbelievers are just as moral as believers (we are, but that’s a philosophical point)—actions count more than words and real donations are where the theoretical rubber meets the practical road. This is our time to pony up and show the world our true character.” And pony up nonbelievers did, in spades.

 

 

 

Yep... so... people who are more educated don't believe in god as often... people who study science accept evolution... out of all scientists, chemists tend to be the heaviest believers... and people who find the god concept uncompelling still give charitably and care for those around them.

 

Next?

Edited August 3, 2010 by iNow

[D H]

The question at hand is not how many scientists believe in god. It is about how many scientists, biologists in particular, accept/reject evolution as a description of how life (and humans) came to be. One need not be an atheist to think that evolution is the correct model. There are plenty of scientists who have in their minds reconciled their religious beliefs with science. That 32% of scientists in the field of biology and medicine (life sciences) believe in god does not mean that 32% of life scientists reject evolution. The number of life scientists who reject evolution is a very small number.

 

BTW, I see that physicists are the smartest of the bunch. 11% of us gave the correct answer to the pollsters: My religion is none of your effin business.

 

 

Re those Gallup polls: The biased phraseology results in rather skewed results. Other polls get different results than does Gallup. Support for teaching of evolution is much stronger than the Gallup results would suggest.

[CharonY]

Also I object against biologists being bunched together with medical sciences.

[Mr Skeptic]

The reality of this is that the further you go outside any scientists area of expertise the further you get away from their opinion being any better than anyone else who has no special knowledge of that particular subject. So it makes sense that 65% of all scientists might disagree with evolution but scientists who's expertise actually include the subject of evolution go closer to 99% It's like asking a brain surgeon what the funny noise is under the hood of my car and thinking his opinion is as good as the opinion of the mechanic who specializes in that particular car....

 

Well it makes sense -- the brain surgeon is smarter, right?

[Moontanman]

Well it makes sense -- the brain surgeon is smarter, right?

 

 

No, the brain surgeon should be more knowledgeable about the brain and how to fix it but the Car mechanic should be more knowledgeable about cars and how to repair them. I see no reason one should be more intelligent than the other...

[Ringer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

 

There are two people who believe in evolution that religious people should be able to listen to.  Also, interestingly enough, Catholic Schools are some of the only schools that teach evolution thoroughly in America.

 

[edit] http://ncse.com/rncse/28/3/review-creation-evolution-conference-with-pope-benedict-xvi

I think this is an interesting read as well [/edit]

Edited August 4, 2010 by Ringer

[forufes]

there is a reason why this thread is in "suggestions, comments and support", because while i can deliver a finishing blow by conducting my own research and showing that 99% of scientists do not accept evolution, why the ruddy hell should i bother? heh, for the sake of argument; 99% of scientists may actually accept evolution, but why should i be the one to carry the burden of proof for someone else's claim??? he made the claim, he backs it up, it's not me who should show reality is otherwise.

 

and so the poor souls who tried their best to show that lots of scientists accept evolution should've posted it somewhere else, unless it proved that 99% of scientists accept evolution. which it didn't.

 

the nature of the quoted sentence in the op is unfounded, has no proof or evidence, i have showed that a million times now, and yet, scienceforums stubbornly refuses to accept that fact, and instead of fixing it, are running around in circles, spouting meaningless stuff about "political arguments" and "scienceforums is not a democracy", like show me where i said it was?! i'm asking for proof, using the scientific method, and you're telling me it's not a democracy? you think before you repeat your tag lines? and then it's me who's making the political argument?

 

if it's ok to boost a percentage because it "doesn't change a thing", i.e 95% or 99% it all shows that lots and lots of scientists believe in evolution,then say so, and we'll start boosting our percentages too.

 

if it's ok to extrapolate studies on a whim and because it serves your purpose, like changing "scientists in one country accept evolution" to "scientists accept evolution" then say it's ok, and the rest of us will start with their extrapolations as well.

 

and before you know it, this place'll be stripped of its last scientific standards, and embrace the scientific movement as a religion where the agenda supports the claim, and not the claim is what supports the agenda. iow;

 

"99% of scientists accept evolution" is true because we believe and want it to be true.

not

our belief that the majority of scientists accept evolution is based on the backed up fact that "99% of scientists accept evolution".

 

i'm not discussing whether scientists accept evolution or not, but rather shed a light on the double standards of how this place is run.

 

lol, just check the last thread posted in this subfora before mine, and look at what the guy went through. and contrast it to what is happening here.

and before we derail some more, that's just an example, i'm talking generally here.

---

Merged post follows:

[/mp]

forufes is raising a stink...

considering you've been in it for 5.5 years, it's only natural for you to think that;

...no stink exists.

[mp]

 

What number would you use, and what impact would it have on the statement?

the numbers mentioned in my refrence, iw ouldn't make something up.

the impact, i'm being truthful and scientific, furthermore, i'm following forum rules. i am not abusing my position as an evolutionist in an evolutionists forum to soar over the rules when debating the creationist minority, even though(for the most part) the former is scientific and the latter isn't, and this is a science forum. yet we hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold them to.

 

so far the closest numbers to the statement quoted in the OP are;

95% of earth and life scientists in the USA accept evolution.

Brian Alters, who some consider an expert in the creationism/evolution debates, stated that 99.9% of scientists accept evolution.

 

the numbers can be anything,as long as they're backed up. i don't believe i'm the one saying this to you now.

Edited August 4, 2010 by forufes

[swansont]

there is a reason why this thread is in "suggestions, comments and support", because while i can deliver a finishing blow by conducting my own research and showing that 99% of scientists do not accept evolution, why the ruddy hell should i bother? heh, for the sake of argument; 99% of scientists may actually accept evolution, but why should i be the one to carry the burden of proof for someone else's claim??? he made the claim, he backs it up, it's not me who should show reality is otherwise.

 

Except that's not what you are asking. You are not asking a poster to correct or back up a statement — you're about five years late for that (Hellbender hasn't posted since September of 2005). You are asking for someone on staff to go in and edit someone's post. That's an entirely different request, and I can understand why nobody on staff wants to do this.

[forufes]

however, it was the staff who locked the thread, by locking it they are saying that what's in it has passed their consent and that it's beyond discussion. otherwise they would've left it open, and i would've simply asked him to back up his claim.

 

that thread is no ordinary thread meant for discussion, it was more of a revised and specially tailored set of arguments and guide lines for a certain audience, which considering the subject of the subfora, and the tone of thread, makes the mistake worse. you are including a speculation in a sealed argument against speculation.

keeping that speculation is a mistake, a big mistake, but nothing too evil.

the follow up actions were what i thought of as bigoted, due to the clear bias to one's side even after it was shown to be at fault.[which, upon reconsideration may have been partly( ) because of my, uh, choice of words in the report message. ]

[Ophiolite]

I am a long time member. That might count for something.

I have trounced many a creationist in threads here, back when that a more popular game. That might count for something.

I am a wholly committed evolutionist - horrible word - who is made,literally, physically ill by the intellectual contortions of some creationists. That might count for something.

I was, for a short time, a moderator on this forum. That might count for something.

 

Still, this is only an opinion. But for the foregoing reasons, I hope some of you might ponder what I say.

 

forufes is correct. Allowing an inaccurate number - and it is inaccurate, or at the very least highly debatable - to stand uncontested in a locked thread is not scientific, it is not objective, it is not ethical. It shows the forum in a bda light. It suggests to waverers that scientists are just as dogmatic as the religious. It serves no one well.

 

That is simply rectified by a short post that notes some of the variation in polls and summarises some of the excellent points made by several posters in this thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree with Ophiolite. There can't be inaccurate claims in that sort of thread. It should be edited to add the proper context for that figure or something -- only if it is wrong, of course. But forufes, while burden of proof may be on whoever makes the claim it is not realistic to expect them to support it even after they are gone. Remember, you are making a claim too (that he is wrong, not just that you don't believe him) and from that claim an unusual demand -- that we edit someone's post from 5 years ago.

[swansont]

I am a long time member. That might count for something.

I have trounced many a creationist in threads here, back when that a more popular game. That might count for something.

I am a wholly committed evolutionist - horrible word - who is made,literally, physically ill by the intellectual contortions of some creationists. That might count for something.

I was, for a short time, a moderator on this forum. That might count for something.

 

Still, this is only an opinion. But for the foregoing reasons, I hope some of you might ponder what I say.

 

forufes is correct. Allowing an inaccurate number - and it is inaccurate, or at the very least highly debatable - to stand uncontested in a locked thread is not scientific, it is not objective, it is not ethical. It shows the forum in a bda light. It suggests to waverers that scientists are just as dogmatic as the religious. It serves no one well.

 

That is simply rectified by a short post that notes some of the variation in polls and summarises some of the excellent points made by several posters in this thread.

 

I do think these things count. I just disagree that this is the proper resolution to the issue. Editing a member's post for inaccuracy is, IMO, a huge deal. Moderators are simply not empowered to do this — we have a moderation policy, and it is centered on rules violations — those are the only threads we edit, and then it is to delete passages that violate rules (e.g. advertising links, smut, flaming) As the message forufes received has conveyed, simply being wrong is not something that is against the rules. Going in and changing what someone said has its own ethical considerations, because it's not what the person said. I'm not going to fix what forufes said a few posts back, "95% of earth and life scientists in the USA accept evolution," which is wrong. That was never posted, nor is it what was said in the links. But it's not my place (or that of anyone on staff) to edit it. It's what forufes said. I can call it out as an error, if I choose to.

 

 

Since the thread was locked, another solution has to be available. And it is. As long as you are not restarting a thread to circumvent the closure (i.e. as long as the locking was not due to thread degeneration), start up a discussion thread on the topic. In this case, a thread on the accuracy of the number, posted in the appropriate forum. That's has sort of happened here, amongst other topics in question, except that it happened in suggestions, and was part of a reported post.