rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Hmmm ok you sure?
It seems to me that there are notable non-creationists who have argued that the mathematical odds against the spontaneous generation of life and all that it entails is, for all practical discussion, insurmountable. Francis Crick comes to mind.
And yet the vast majority of scientists do not see any insurmountable, or even improbable, problems.
No matter how you slice it, naturalistic explanations for evolution, and everything else around us, continue to prove themselves, while supernatural events and irreducibly complex systems are nowhere to be found. Nowhere.
Actually, the story linked by Momma Angel, as well as a similar survey often referenced by Timberlandko
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp
indicates that 40-45% of the scientists surveyed did not think naturalistic explanations were sufficient to account for the origin of man. Only 55% did.
thunder_runner32 wrote:Quote:But when it comes to their fundamental belief system, they are clinging to the illusion that human beings are so special that only a benevolent god could have produced them and, therefore, the material world -- like Brahe's sun and its five planets -- must revolve around them.
45% of scientists believe our existence must be attributed to intelligence......
Tripe, poppycock, balderdash, and outright falsehood.
This from a religionist site, no less:
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 ...
The following are more accurate, truthful representations the "Official Position" of the Scientific Community:
[url=http://www.aaas.org/]The American Association for the Advancement of Science[/url] wrote:AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.
Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
Quote:American Astronomical Society Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
20 September 2005
The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation's K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe, cited below), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.
In recent years, advocates of "Intelligent Design" have proposed teaching "Intelligent Design" as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, "Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation's primary and secondary schools.
The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.
The fact of the matter is that the data from which that erroneous assertion is wrongly developed show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.
Quote:(A)ccording to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science
55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.
Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years."
The survey ... asked ... the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God "guided" evolution to create humans.
While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.
Because only a quarter to a third of Americans are Protestant evangelicals or fundamentalists, the 1991 Gallup Poll showed that many mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews believe in a "last 10,000 years human creation." The 1991 poll also showed that college-educated Americans were far more likely to accept evolution, underscoring their closer affinity to the views of scientists.
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. Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics.
From The University of California, Berkeley website Understanding Evolution:
Quote:Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time ...
The religionist/creationist/ID-ist position is ludicrous, insupportable, self-cancelling (through wholly internally referential rationalization), roundly dismissed by a vast majority of members belonging to the legitimate, accreditted, mainstream scientific and academic communities, and adherence to the fairytale-based cockamamie "Intelligent Design/Creationist Theory" betrays a paucity of intellectual honesty and achievement.
But then, its little wonder supermarket tabloids enjoy greater circulation than do scientific journals, or than do legitimate newspapers and periodicals, for that matter. The markket for fiction, while insatiable, is fed quite easily. Non-fiction is a harder crop to grow, tougher to chew, and more work to digest, which, though it is more nourishing, is why it is embraced by a more selective demographic.
c.i. wrote:tr, Just because 45% of scientists believe in ID, that doesn't make it true - nor untrue. Contemporary science is still young compared to the age of this planet, but we have made great strides in learning about our environment during the past century. We will learn more at a faster pace in the future as science and technology advances are found.
Scientists at one time thought the earth was flat - and those numbers chased 100 percent.
thunder_runner32 in response wrote:Then, should we believe anything scientists tell us?
As demonstrated, the creationists/ID-ists are the ones given to innaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, and straw men. "Every tree is known by his own fruit." (KJV, Luke 6:44)
real life wrote:Where did I say they were "on my side" ? You mischaracterize my post.
How so? The assertion addressed was runner's statement that "45% of scientists believe our existence must be attributed to intelligence, a position endorsed and defended by you in your offering, "... the figures you cite only verified Runner's point. 45% of the scientists did NOT follow the party line that ONLY naturalistic causes could account for the origin of man."
The data presented allow for no assumption that any more than 5% of all scientists surveyed support Creationism/ID, while pointing out specifically that " ... Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ... ". That 99.85% those scientists most directly involved with the study of origins, those actually working in the fields of the earth and life sciences, reject the Creationist/ID position is the fact. The assertion that 45% of scientists believe the universe requires a creator/designer is an assertion devoid of support, either direct or inferential.
real life wrote:A survey referred to a number of times by Timberlandko indicates 40% of the membership responding to a survey by American Men and Women in Science took a theistic evolution viewpoint. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp
rl, as pointed out numerous times, using the survey you cite as indication of "Scientific Support for Creationism/ID-iocy" is specious; what dieticians and mechanical engineers might or might not think of an issue entirely contained within The Earth and Life Sciences is immaterial in the face of the fact that Over 99.8% of Earth and Life Scientists Endorse The Standard Evolutionary Model. If an Earth/Life Scientist were to offer a critique of Information Theory, or of the role aesthetically pleasing presentation of meals plays in the overall picture of nutrition it would be equally irrelevant.
Your tactic in this instance has been ripped to shreds Here, Here, and Here, among many other examples from other participants in this discussion. The flag you wave is tattered beyond redemption or further use.
I refer you once again to a study directly pertinent to your manner of argument in this regard.
in continuing emulation of a greasy-fingered grasp of reality, real life wrote:timberlandko wrote:real life wrote:The survey ... validates my point ...
Your point, unless you are capable of reading minds, is pointless.
You have absolutely no idea WHO ACTUALLY RESPONDED or WHAT FIELD THEY CLAIM EXPERTISE IN.
The group they belong to and who issued the survey obviously considered them, as a group, to be educated enough that their opinion in this matter might have some value.
Let me break this to you gently; for a statistical sample - a survey - to have substantive relevance to the thing, condition, or state of being at study, that statistical sample must be proportionately representative of the study universe. Of the more than 200 disciplines listed, distributed among 10 categories, included were 19 "Earth Sciences", a subset more than a dozen of which (such as, among others, Atmospheric Dynamics, Fuel Technology & Petroleum Engineering, Hydrology & Water Resources, and Oceanography) pertain to specialties tangential to the primary fields of interest for purposes of our present discussion. The remainder, a half dozen specialties, comprise those of relevance to studies of planetary formation and development and the emergence and progress of life thereon. That specific further subset equates to under 3% of the sciences and specialties listed. To assume that any one or another subset might to any significant degree have been over or under represented in proportion to that subset's occurrence within the overall sample universe is to assume the survey invalidates itself as a representative analog to the sample universe. Now, either the survey is valid, and my point regarding the relevant qualifications of its respondents is valid, and you have no point, or the survey is invalid due to sampling error, and those using the survey in support of the Creation/ID proposition have no point. Which is it?
Quote:Of course, you know better, right?
Apparently so - I understand sampling and statistics.
Quote:Without even knowing who responded, or how many folks there actually ARE in each category who were surveyed (all that the list shows is the POTENTIAL fields from which a nomination will be considered) , you have divined how qualified each one was and pronounced "a vast number" of them unqualified.
What a joke.
Care to share with us the EXACT number[/b] that comprises your "vast number"?
Care to share with us what fields the disqualified imposters were from? (Those wretched pretenders! How dare they speak their mind!)
You are a continuing source of entertainment, Timber , as your bluster and your nonsense combine to delight and lighten the hearts of your devoted readers. Keep it up, friend. :wink:
Undiscouraged, though not exactly expectant, I continue to await pertinent, substantive response from your quarter, and again express my thanks for and appreciation of the entertainment you in particular provide, evidently unwittingly, in lieu of such response.
