What % of scientists think macroevolution is a historical fact?

Question

I haven't been able to find any stats. Can you help? Please insert references if you can.

Anyone have anything close to actual stats?

Answer 1

The creationist/ID group "The Discovery Institute" has a list for scientist who doubt or question evolution. While the wording is tricky at best, there have a couple of hundred names. The National Center for Science Education is running Project Steve, named for Stephen J. Gould, which is to be signed only by Phd's whose name is Steve or some deritive (Like Stephen, or Stephanie). The NCSE has 775 Steve's on its list.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

One good way to test the number of those who support/deny evolution is to check out the peer-reviewed journals.
No creationist/anti evolution article has passed peer review in many decades, and only one recently was attempted (A Discovery Inst. writer got a friend of his who 1)Edited a magazine and 2) was retiring to insert an article on ID. When it was discovered, the journal renounced the article as unworthy of being printed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
"The list of Steves is far more prestigious than any list of living scientists the creationists have ever produced. It includes Nobel Prize winners, members of the National Academy of Sciences, and influential authors such as Stephen Hawking. It is telling that creationist lists tend to be lean on practicing research biologists. In contrast, about two-thirds of the scientists on NCSE's list are biologists, who are the most qualified to evaluate whether the evidence favors evolution. Another point is that the NCSE's list includes the information on where the Steves got their degrees and their current position. By not doing so, the creationist lists do not make it obvious how many of the people listed are not practicing scientists."

Answer 2

I haven't found any specific stats on believers among scientists. Here is part of an article discussing the controversial nature of of macroevolution.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution.

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Macroevolution

The above is a link to the page which contains a lot more information and additional links to other sites. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.

Those who believe in macroevoloution can be roughly divided into two groups. There are those who believe that there is a God who has used these methods under his supervision to produce life in all its variety. Among those who hold this theistic-evolutionary view are a few distinguished scientists such as Sir Ghillean Prance and Professor Sam Berry, however, on the whole it is not an empirical view point, and it therefore can not be seen as a scientific view, but one of thesism.

A slightly larger group, represented most vocally by Professor Richard Dawkins, subscribe to the 'Blind Watchmaker' thesis (Johnson's helpful term based on Dawkins), the belief that the processes driving evolution are blind and undirected. The theory is still not heavily suscribed, and as the majority of scientists, the followers of microevoloution have on the whole an open mind to the concept, but without proof, it is just that, a space to alow the teroy to fit if it can be proven to fit.

Answer 4

I hear that 68% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Answer 5

i believe it is 45%