Still think that a lot of scientists question evolution?

Question

I know it was a loaded question. Of course scientists question evolution; they wouldn't bother finding evidence supporting it if they didn't seek opportunities to fill holes in it. I do, however, have a nice little article to post that is directly related to the title.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

You see, a lot of creationists claim that there is an increasing creationist/intelligent design movement among scientists. Some are so bold as to claim that the vast majority of scientists reject evolution. Project Steve seeks to disprove that.

The premise is a bit tough to understand at first-- it was for me, anyway. Basically, it's a list of scientists who feel that evolution is a perfectly strong and well-supported theory. The catch is, only people named Steve, Steven, or Stephanie (or something similar) were asked to sign. The end result is a list of names that were supposedly drawn from only 1% of the population.

*continued*

This means that for every Steve on the list, there are about 99 more scientists who could've signed, but were not named Steve.

The site I linked also features a list of lists of scientists who question evolution, with a 'steve-o-meter' next to the official count. The joke here is that sure, you might be able to get 500 scientists to sign a list saying that they question evolution, but what if they were to put themselves under the same restrictions as Project Steve?

The question in the title is aimed at those who believed those lists: Can you honestly say that there is a big creationist movement among scientists?

May Pelor shine upon your questions. May Balthazar give you the strength to resist hate. May Athena bless your answers with wisdom.

~Your friendly neighborhood atheist

Groucho: You misunderstand. It's a real list of Steves, but its purpose is as a parody of the lists I mentioned. You can find links to these creationist lists on the site.

Answer 1

So much of it is academic peer pressure; it’s not wanting to be different. We are so indoctrinated in molecules-to-man evolution, and many people are intimidated (e.g. Ben Stein's new movie).

Secular scientists are fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, and like every human, they hate to be criticized and are subject to bias and preconceived ideas, and they don’t want to lose their grant money.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who don’t know everything and who were not there. And history shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised. Often, the bold pronouncements of secular scientists are contradicted years or even months later.

The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat; did that make it flat? The majority of doctors used to think they didn’t need to wash their hands before an operation; did that save the people they were infecting? And on and on... Those who discovered the truth and tried to teach differently were soundly rejected by their colleagues. And as it has been said, “The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

As Dr. Ross Olson said, “Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions. Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.”

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

From what I have seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Dr. Ross Olson, “...often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.”

Answer 2

Well, in my own opinion if there ever be a reality to that statement about evolution, what is important is that the end result was good.
If humanity is a result of evolution , atleast the end part is good. Humanity...... They just have a lot of individual differences that may be very goodm, or bad. But they have the intelligence other species may not possess..
However, if we came from one race and changes the complexion , height , form, etc. because of temperature or environment.....
That remains to be a question and the answer is yet unknown.....

Answer 3

I think the problem raises it's head when "natural selection" is defined. If the statement had added something like, "There is no plan, no guidance, no purpose, no design to natural selection.", then I think that far fewer people would have signed. Natural selection is based upon inherently random variables and so we don't know, and can never know, whether there is guidance or not.

Answer 4

Read the responses here. Take note of who is a creationist. Now check who allows IMs and/or emails.

Interesting correlation, isn't it?

Me? I'm for open discourse.

Answer 5

No real scientist question the fact of evolution. They may all question the process of evolution. There are some quacks who want to make a name for themselves by siding with creationists. but everyone of intelligence recognizes them as nuts and the fact that intelligent design is nonsense.

Answer 6

Newsflash

Zsa Zsa saves Cheezy Spaceman from Evil Space Queen in designer wrap and 8" heels.

All have returned to Earth safely

Dorothy discovers that she had the power all along.

"There's no place like home" "There's no place like home"

Stares at Creature from the Black Lagoon. "Gee Aunty Em, you were there too (looks to window) and you, and you.

"Gosh, maybe it was about evolution... Stop that Toto."

Answer 7

My favorite scientists are the ones who don't throw out intelligent design simply because evolution is so attractive. However, if they throw out evolution immediately I lose respect for them. Oh well.

Answer 8

Well, when these people assert that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old, even when faced with scientific evidence. . They do not hold too much credibility in my book. . . I am surprised that they have not declared the Earth to be the Center of the Universe! I suspect they would like to dig up Gallalio and have his body tortured for heresy.

Answer 9

I'll edit when you're done adding info

EDIT:
I'm back. And I already have a thumbs-down for just saying that I wanted to wait until you had completed giving your additional details so I could give an informed answer--some people!

Anyway, Evolution is NOT in trouble by a lack of belief in it by the scientific community. Lack of understanding, yes, but that's why scientists are studying it. If they believed in God, they wouldn't be devoting their lives to explaining our existence without God.

That's actually where I have a problem with the statistics here. I have often seen Atheists throw out that over 99% of the scientific community is Atheist or Agnostic like I should be impressed. To me, this is comparable to me stating that over 99% of all clergy believe in God--people become clergymen because they DO believe in God, and scientists because (in part) they DON'T believe in God.

As for my faith, I believe in the supernatural. This does not mean that I am not fascinated by the universe around me, nor does it mean that I do not beam at new knowledge and insights as to how it works. For these, I look to science, and science rarely disappoints.

Answer 10

Evolution is a vital, well-supported,(WELL BELIEVED) 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(SAME AS CREATION). Although there are legitimate(SHOULD BE UNDERLINED) debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred(EXCEPT THAT THE BIOCHEMISTRY DOESN'T WORK) or that natural selection is a major mechanism(CHRISTIANS WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM FOR SPECIES FITNESS) in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience(NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A SCIENCE, BUT A PHILOSOPHICAL GRID OF INTERPRETATION), including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. (BECAUSE IT WOULD THREATEN IRRELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION INSTEAD OF TRULY EDUCATING KIDS ABOUT THE DEBATE)