G'nite, Neo - be well. Oh, Frank has popped into the site here and there, as recently as yesterday. He's been well, but too busy to follow the threads and play the way he usually does, and it seems his 'puter is giving him fits, besides. I expect he'll be around in a much more typical fashion when those issues get resolved.
Anyhow ... lemme see here ... where was I? Oh, yeah.
rl wrote:And I might add that I am far from alone in holding the view that naturalistic causes are not adequate to explain the origin of humans, etc
A survey of scientists, posted by our friend Timberlandko, showed that only 55% of the scientists surveyed thought that naturalistic causes alone were sufficient. The other 45% of scientists surveyed did NOT think that naturalistic causes alone were sufficient causes to explain human origins.
Actually, rl, your assertion there is inaccurate. No such survey was posted here by myself nor by anyone else; another member brought up the "45% claim", I merely
Addressed that preposterous claim, citing among other sources for my rebuttal a 1997 article which referrenced the 1996 survey alluded to by that other member. The survey at discussion made no such claim as you aver, but rather the article discussing it said
Fine - we'll stipulate the 5% - lets look at that 40% thing "
But 40% ... include God in the process." Does that entail that 40% of the scientists surveyed support Creationism/ID? Hardly. The article further said
Quote:... Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.
"I believe God could work through evolution," a South Carolina mathematician wrote in a marginal note on the survey "Bell shaped curves describe how characteristics are distributed.. . so I think that God uses what we perceive to be 'random processes.'" Despite such affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man, according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science ...
... The standard view in science is that modern-day Homo sapiens emerged 40,000 years ago and began to organize societies 10,000 years ago. The oldest humanlike ape is called Australopithecus, or "southern ape." It was found in Africa and is believed to date back 4 million years. Homo erectus developed 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia beginning 100,000 years ago ...
... The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality ...
... Two biologists from Ohio refined the question about God and evolution. One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place." ...
Now, belief in a diety which answers prayers and which "
... could work through evolution ... ", a diety which perhaps "
... created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution ... " or which "
... did not guide the process 'but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place' ... ", that some scientists responding to the survey inderterminately "
... include God in the process" somehow or other, does not constitute anything like the endorsement of Creationism/ID you imply; it merely indicates some scientists responding to the survey, the overwhelming majority of whom have no quibble whatsoever with the scientific theory of evolution, are neither athiestic nor agnostic in belief.
By and large, the Creationist/IDers among this group of scientists exist primarily in the minds of the proponents of Creationism/ID. A misleading ambiguity arises in the very use of the word "Scientists" - from what disciplines were these responding scientists? It is unreasonable to conclude anything other than that the survey universe represented a statistical match with the overall universe of scientists, among which would be a large number of engineering researchers, mathematics researchers, linguistic researchers, medical/surgical researchers, veterinary researchers, psychological researchers, dietary science researchers, information technology/computer science researchers, political science researchers, etc, etc, etc - "Science" is a pretty big pond, with lotsa different kinds of fish in it. Many of those fish - most of them, in fact - have nothing whatsoever to do with, no background or credentials in, probably very little if any interest regarding, the study of the cosmos, the earth, or its life forms.
Now lets look at another assessment, also as quoted from my earlier post:
Quote:Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ...
Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified; i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief.
Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist ...
Lets add a footnote to that - According to a 1987 Newsweek article, " ... there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23
That would put support forCreationism/ID among those scientists who actually deal with the study of earth and its life at about 0.14%. While my auto mechanic is free to offer me medical advice and opinion, I tend to look elsewhere for such info - like, to the medical profession, wherein it is reasonable to expect more reliable advice and more well founded opinion related to health matters than one would expect to find elsewhere.
Were I to seek info regarding the pumps and seals in my automatic transmission from my doctor, I would be unsurprised by a blank look. For that matter, my doctor refers patients to radiologists and endocrinologists and hematologists and surgeons, etc, etc, etc when and as appropriate, knowing the limits of his training, skills, and experience. Both my mechanic and my doctor rely on my IT skills, but neither seek advice or opinion from me pertinent to their own fields, nor would I presume to offer it.
To start bringing this ramble to a close, let me revisit a couple points - of the nearly half million life and earth scientists in the US in 1987, a study cited by Newsweek indicated a statistically insignificant 700-some-odd supported Creationism/ID. One may say just about anything one wants about just about anything. However, for what one says about something to be relevant and pertinent, to have substance, what is said should be relevant and pertinent to the subject at discussion, and be not at odds with established fact. In the case of Creationsim/ID, the established fact is that Science repudiates Creationism/ID, conclusively in the case of science in the aggregate, and overwhelmingly in the case of those sciences directly concerned with the questions of earth and its lifeforms, and their histories.
As cited and linked in my earlier post, both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Astronomical Society recently have published strongly worded position papers unambiguously repudiating Creationism/ID.
Central to the scientific proposition is that there exist natural, logical explanations for how things work. Insofar as they are able, scientists explain things through basic laws, tested and found to be valid, theories tested and found to be consistent with those basic laws, and hypotheses tested and found to be not inconsistent with those established theories, ever cognizant of the simple fact knowledge is incomplete, ever seeking to add to the body of knowledge. Science is unafraid to say "I don't know"; science has no room for magic, myth, or mystery.
Science has nothing to say regarding Origins. Creationism/ID seeks to impose its particular theologic speculations regarding Origins on science. Whether or not evolution was initiated by and/or proceeds under the direction of a diety is a theologic issue, a matter of religion, not science. Science has no business meddling with religion, and religion has no business meddling with science.
Science holds up its end of that bargain.
