Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Jim]

@Audie I forgot, I wanted to point out that in the survey above, in answer to a question that required choosing between evolution due to natural processes, and evolution guided by a supreme being, the number of working Ph.D biomedical scientists who chose “guided by a supreme being” had a weight of 6%.

 

[Audie]

I don’t think of anyone as being “anti-science.” I do think that there is a lot of dishonesty, and people closing their eyes to what they don’t want to see, in all of society, including all professions and all institutions, but that isn’t the point of what I’ve been doing in this thread. I’m trying to find out where people are getting their numbers from, so I can see for myself what the sources say.

Lets get what I said in context..
I would still be a yec as
that is what the bible seems to indicate".

AS that is the very definition of anti science,
and intellectual dishonesty, the unreasonable
claim is not from poly, but from you, suggesting as
you do that some substantial portion of the
scientific community are in fact anti science
and being intellectually dishonest, pay no
attention to data that does not suit them.

IF you are suggesting that there is some
significant portion of the world scientific
community that rejects evolution then you
are doing exactly as I said.

You go on now to talk of dishonesty,
and people closing their eyes to what
they don’t want to see,

And that is fine, and all true enough. Let us
though be specific if we can, who we
are actually talking about. For lo, those
are the exact characteristics that are
essential if one is to be a creo.

To say that it typifies the way that research
is done around the world is kind out of line.
We trust it is not what you are saying.

 

[Polymath257]

@Audie I forgot, I wanted to point out that in the survey above, in answer to a question that required choosing between evolution due to natural processes, and evolution guided by a supreme being, the number of working Ph.D biomedical scientists who chose “guided by a supreme being” had a weight of 6%.

I'll tell you what. You go and design a survey that covers the information you want and then go and administer it. If the results are significantly different than what I claimed, I will admit that I am wrong.

 

[Audie]

@Audie I forgot, I wanted to point out that in the survey above, in answer to a question that required choosing between evolution due to natural processes, and evolution guided by a supreme being, the number of working Ph.D biomedical scientists who chose “guided by a supreme being” had a weight of 6%.

It is common for doctors to be religious.
Not uncommon among scientists in general.
Usually people have enough sense not to
let such data free notions interfere with their
research; those who do not will ruin their
careers with shoddy work.

"...guided by supreme" is VERY vague.
Did a "god" set up the rules and then stand
by and let it run itself, or, does he meddle
constantly in everything?

If one wishes to go the deist route, a remote
and undetectable god who meddleth not, that
is simply a faith issue with no bearing on
science of how one does his work.

Goddidit, as in the 6 day poof is a different
matter altogether.

 

[Audie]

I'll tell you what. You go and design a survey that covers the information you want and then go and administer it. If the results are significantly different than what I claimed, I will admit that I am wrong.

Good idea. Let us say no more on this until
such has been done.

 

[Polymath257]

@Audie I forgot, I wanted to point out that in the survey above, in answer to a question that required choosing between evolution due to natural processes, and evolution guided by a supreme being, the number of working Ph.D biomedical scientists who chose “guided by a supreme being” had a weight of 6%.

My PhD advisor in physics was religious and believed that the universe was guided by a Supreme being while also being subject to the laws of nature and following natural processes. The two are not exclusive.

 

[Jim]

"Excluded" you say. Why did you choose
that word? Barred from entry. "YOU SHALL
NOT PASS!"
Something subconscious on your part?
Why not "not included"?

And why (on gods green earth) would magic
be included? You do know that science and
magic are like, not compatible?
You may as well ask why batboy and superman
were excluded.

I was right. You are the best person for me to talk to about this. My forum gods never fail me. The survey did include magic. Along with evolution due to natural causes, it allowed these answers:
- Évolution guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating human beings and other life as they are now.
- Humans and other species existing as they are now, since the beginning of time.

It allowed any one of those answers, but it explicitly excluded choosing more than one. It also included the possibility of saying that humans and other species have existed as they are now, since the beginning of time, but not the possibility of saying that they were created separately, without denying that they have evolved.

I dont see much purpose in a survey.

I think that they are worse than useless, as ways of finding out what people think.

Science is not, as they say, a popularity contest. It doesn't freakin' make any difference what the exact percentages are, now or then or whenever.

Exactly. I agree wholeheartedly.Thank you!

 

[Jim]

IF you are suggesting that there is some significant portion of the world scientific community that rejects evolution then you are doing exactly as I said.

I’m not suggesting that, not at all. I’m suggesting that endorsing evolution theory does not always exclude believing that it is guided by a supreme being with a will and purpose, and that it doesn’t even have to exclude believing that humans and other species have existed separately from the beginning of time.

You go on now to talk of dishonesty, and people closing their eyes to what they don’t want to see,
And that is fine, and all true enough. ... To say that it typifies the way that research is done around the world is kind out of line. We trust it is not what you are saying.

I wouldn’t say that it typifies the way that research is done. I would say that I see no reason to think that it happens any less in research than it does in the rest of society.

 

[Audie]

I was right. You are the best person for me to talk to about this. My forum gods never fail me. The survey did include magic. Along with evolution due to natural causes, it allowed these answers:
- Évolution guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating human beings and other life as they are now.
- Humans and other species existing as they are now, since the beginning of time.

It allowed any one of those answers, but it explicitly excluded choosing more than one. It also included the possibility of saying that humans and other species have existed as they are now, since the beginning of time, but not the possibility of saying that they were created separately, without denying that they have evolved.

I think that they are worse than useless, as ways of finding out what people think.

Exactly. I agree wholeheartedly.Thank you!

It only does not matter if the topic is whether the
science is valid.

I think it would matter a lot of science degenerated
into faith and magic.

 

[Audie]

I’m not suggesting that, not at all. I’m suggesting that endorsing evolution theory does not always exclude believing that it is guided by a supreme being with a will and purpose, and that it doesn’t even have to exclude believing that humans and other species have existed separately from the beginning of time.

I wouldn’t say that it typifies the way that research is done. I would say that I see no reason to think that it happens any less in research than it does in the rest of society.

It is exactly what you were suggesting and are
now stating explicitly

 

[Polymath257]

I’m not suggesting that, not at all. I’m suggesting that endorsing evolution theory does not always exclude believing that it is guided by a supreme being with a will and purpose, and that it doesn’t even have to exclude believing that humans and other species have existed separately from the beginning of time.

So, do you think a significant percentage of working biologists will think that humans have existed from the beginning of time?

For example, do you expect any significant percentage of working biologist to agree that humans existed when dinosaurs did?

I don't.

 

[Jim]

Good idea. Let us say no more on this until
such has been done.

Are you suggesting that no one say any more about how many scientists support evolution? I’m not the one who brought it up. I don’t think that I would have any reason ever to bring it up again, if no one else does.

 

[Audie]

Are you suggesting that no one say any more about how many scientists support evolution? I’m not the one who brought it up. I don’t think that I would have any reason ever to bring it up again, if no one else does.

Good. Next one to mention it is a bad person.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you suggesting that no one say any more about how many scientists support evolution? I’m not the one who brought it up. I don’t think that I would have any reason ever to bring it up again, if no one else does.

The questions you addressed don't affect the support for evolution, do they? They merely add the possibility that evolution is directed by a supreme being, right?

 

[Jim]

So, do you think a significant percentage of working biologists will think that humans have existed from the beginning of time?

For example, do you expect any significant percentage of working biologist to agree that humans existed when dinosaurs did.

I don’t know what to think about that. It would surprise me if any working biologists thought that way, but according to your source it’s one out of 100.

 

[Jim]

The questions you addressed don't affect the support for evolution, do they? They merely add the possibility that evolution is directed by a supreme being, right?

Right.

 

[Jim]

So, do you think a significant percentage of working biologists will think that humans have existed from the beginning of time?

For example, do you expect any significant percentage of working biologist to agree that humans existed when dinosaurs did?

I don't.

According to your source, there are working Ph.D biologists who think that there has been no evolution at all, since the beginning of time. I’m having some trouble picturing what kind of work in biology they could possibly be doing.

 

[tas8831]

A wise man knows there is more to learn, searches for it and is open to the knowledge. A fool thinks he already knows it all.

In this scenario science represents the wise man.

Indeed.

Creationists are the fools. I know.

 

[tas8831]

I think you know very well its a problem, and you just want to go on and keep jumping hoops.... Lets just agree that gradualism is a issue, that even evolutionist see.

So precious that you rely on decades old ICR essays and references to an 1859 book for your whole 'whales from bears' routine.

As sad as it is expected of internet creationists.

 

[Jim]

@Polymath257 It isn’t so hard for me to picture after all. They would have to understand and use the model, but they wouldn’t have to think of it as being real.