Evolution? How?

Nothing about what i've written either suggests or states that the National Geographic Society is playing fast and loose with the truth.

Ros has consistently argued for a purely naturalistic approach as the only acceptable stance for a scientist.

Perhaps you are simply unwilling to acknowledge that they are credentialed. At least NG and Nature seem to indicate that they are.

If you have doubts about that, your doubts would best be directed to NG or Nature since they both publicized the results using that verbiage.

And what of the respondents in the other survey -- the membership of American Men and Women in Science (1995) ? I suppose AMWS is suspect as well, in your book, since you don't care for the results?

Setanta wrote:

Nothing about what i've written either suggests or states that the National Geographic Society is playing fast and loose with the truth.

Then why do you continue to refer to the Nature survey respondents as just 'subscribers' when NG states that they are US scientists?

Perhaps you are simply unwilling to acknowledge that they are credentialed. At least NG and Nature seem to indicate that they are.

If you have doubts about that, your doubts would best be directed to NG or Nature since they both publicized the results using that verbiage.

And what of the respondents in the other survey -- the membership of American Men and Women in Science (1995) ? I suppose AMWS is suspect as well, in your book, since you don't care for the results?

PUBLIC BELIEFS ABOUT EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Beliefs of American Adults


According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count 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..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently ...

... The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists."

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view ...

That would actually make it 99.854 percent of geological and biological scientists that support evolution.

I"m not sure what other statistics (of about 1/10th of one percent) in life would give credence to that kind of ratio on anything - important.

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Nothing about what i've written either suggests or states that the National Geographic Society is playing fast and loose with the truth.

Then why do you continue to refer to the Nature survey respondents as just 'subscribers' when NG states that they are US scientists?

Perhaps you are simply unwilling to acknowledge that they are credentialed. At least NG and Nature seem to indicate that they are.

If you have doubts about that, your doubts would best be directed to NG or Nature since they both publicized the results using that verbiage.

And what of the respondents in the other survey -- the membership of American Men and Women in Science (1995) ? I suppose AMWS is suspect as well, in your book, since you don't care for the results?

Here ya go -

[url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/index.htm#new]Religious Tolerance-dot-Org[/url] wrote:

PUBLIC BELIEFS ABOUT EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Beliefs of American Adults


According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count 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..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently ...

... The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Now are ya happy?

conitinuing, the article's author wrote:

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists."

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view ...

Now, lets dig a little deeper into the cited studies. While scientist may or may not be totally atheistic by philosophy, a clear majority are, and the overwhelming majority of scientists endorse the standard evolutionary model. However, taking a look at what the referenced studies claim who believes what among the general public turns up some interesting data. For instance, pertaining to the Creationist position, among respondants, the notion is endorsed by 25% of college graduates, 65% of those with no highschool diploma (the largest cited demographic), 29% of those with incomes above $50,000/yr, and by 59% of those with incomes below $20,000/yr (the 2nd largest demographic). By and large, that puts the core popular support demographic for Creationism/ID-iocy right in there with that for professional wrestling or demolition derby; Bubba goes for it.

Basically this post of yours is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but at least you got to call someone a name, so your day wasn't wasted right? You feel good? Good.

Basically this post of yours is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but at least you got to call someone a name, so your day wasn't wasted right? You feel good? Good.

rl wrote:

Basically this post of yours is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but at least you got to call someone a name, so your day wasn't wasted right? You feel good? Good.

Au contrere, mon fere - it precisely is the point; your argument in toto is specious, and in the particular of your assertion re "Scientists" support of the Creationist/ID-iot proposition, detailed in the post of mine you cite as demonstrably specious. What the data of the studies says is not at all what your posts have been for several pages implying it says.

Now on to point #2; precisely who was called what name?

real life wrote:

Basically this post of yours is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but at least you got to call someone a name, so your day wasn't wasted right? You feel good? Good.

By the way, are you ever going to tell us if you think the Earth is over a million years old or not?

At the rate we're going, this thread is going to be older than that before you answer the question.

timber don't need no ego-propping when he challenges any ID-iot position.

All your claims and responses have been short on facts and evidence.

That's your usual SOP; attack the messenger when you can no longer answer the challenges directed your way.

You're what one can call a sad-sack; always attack the messenger.

timberlandko wrote:

Now on to point #2; precisely who was called what name?

Were you asleep when you referred to folks as idiots, Bubbas, the Lowest common denominator, etc?

Hopefully it props up your ego to do so.