http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
Project Steve is a list of scientists with the name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It is produced by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", poking fun at such endeavors in a "light-hearted" manner to make it clear that "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"[1] However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists, and despite its restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which the organizers claim restricts the list to roughly 1% of the total population[2], it is longer and contains many more eminent scientists (and in particular biologists) than any creationist list.
2007-02-03 15:01:09 · 11 answers · asked by Alucard 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jett - If you mean 3% of scientists are Steves, that is incorrect, it is 1%. There are many top scientists including Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawkings and noble prize winner Steven Weinberg.
2007-02-03 15:09:07 · update #1
Go ahead poke your fun at Creationists. Go ahead flaunt your so called scientific minds. You are so dogmatic in your own god-like minds that there is no one higher in thought, reason, like yourselves. You are so wise that if we didn't bow down to you, you might throw us into some primordial soup that would cause us to de-evolve. Which if you could evolve why is there no de-evolving, oh that's what you claim Christians are. Forgive me of such lunacy I should have known. to you we are lunatics, fanatics and down right ignorant of the facts, facts that are no facts at all. Facts that do not even bare up in court, or maybe they could with some of the court shenanigans that go on these days. Facts that sound like something off of a late night tv show like David Letterman now thats de-evolution if I was witness to it. How about facts present them, bring them out in the open. Don't cite what others have done or cite what others have said, bring your evidences that you have and show them for what they truly are you cannot do it. You have no proof of it period! But hey we're so stupid and you are so brilliant in your thinking that truly man evloved, a leap that is so fanciful that they only reason is that they have to reject the truth to believe - but hey go ahead who is listening.
2007-02-03 15:15:32 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know what you are asking. Are you claiming that science is established by consensus? I thought that science was the product of research and observation.
It doesn't matter what scientists believe. it doesn't matter what they watch on TV. And it doesn't matter who they vote for. None of that has anything to do with science.
When science is established by conjecture and speculation, it isn't science. When science is determined by how many scientists believe theory A as opposed to theory B, that is not science.
Using that analogy, a great musician opening a rusty door will make a more musical squeak.
2007-02-03 23:29:28 · answer #2 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 People believe in 1 thing and 10 believe in something else, does that mean the 10 are wrong and the others are right?
What if the same group just decided to say the sun rises in the north or the west would everyone else that knows it rises in the East suddenly be mistaken?
2007-02-03 23:10:49 · answer #3 · answered by timjim 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The point is well taken that the matter will not be settled by who has the longer list of advocates. The matter has been settled by a proof that evoluiton is correct (details on request), so it is a waste of time to have further argument about it.
2007-02-03 23:09:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Excellent!
2007-02-03 23:08:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Less than 3 % actually, and none of the top scientists.
2007-02-03 23:04:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
What was the question?
2007-02-03 23:10:56 · answer #7 · answered by Dysthymia 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Adam (Steve's significant other) must be very proud.
2007-02-03 23:10:04 · answer #8 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
that is so cool, how friggin cool is that?
it may sound like sarcasm, alas it is not, i disagree with creationism quite a bit.
2007-02-03 23:06:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I don't know.
should I bow to your (and their) superior knowledge of all things spiritual and eternal?
and all this time, I thought God created the universe and created YOU and that He was the one with the vast knowledge of all things spiritual and eternal.
oh, before I give up on my belief in God totally, what are your qualifications again?
2007-02-03 23:06:10 · answer #10 · answered by Chef Bob 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋