Originally posted by RJHinds Creation scientists are those scientists that recognize that the scientific
evidence supports the creation view over the view that everything
came into existence on its own by random chance. There is no scientific
evidence that supports the random chance view.
So how do you explain the 99.998% of scientists who don't support the creationist view?
Originally posted by RJHinds It seems I have a way of doing things like that for atheists.
How about the qualitative statement that scientists in general are less likely to
be religious or believe in biblical creation than the general population,
and physicists and biologists in particular are less likely to believe than scientist's
in general?
This is verifiably true.
And does not bode well for an argument that science supports your religious view
as those who know most about the relevant science are those least likely to agree
with you.
Originally posted by googlefudge How about the qualitative statement that scientists in general are less likely to
be religious or believe in biblical creation than the general population,
and physicists and biologists in particular are less likely to believe than scientist's
in general?
This is verifiably true.
And does not bode well for an argument that science supports yo ...[text shortened]...
as those who know most about the relevant science are those least likely to agree
with you.
Here where I live I haven't seen any proof of what you say.
"The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition.
It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1100) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent."
Originally posted by moon1969 From wikipedia (citations ommitted):
Project Steve
"The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" o ...[text shortened]... ho support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent."
See there. I knew it. No proof, only an estimate - a guess.
Originally posted by RJHinds See there. I knew it. No proof, only an estimate - a guess.
If you can reasonably estimate that 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution,
then it doesn't matter if the real answer is even a few % off that.
The vast majority is still going to believe in evolution.
Originally posted by googlefudge If you can reasonably estimate that 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution,
then it doesn't matter if the real answer is even a few % off that.
The vast majority is still going to believe in evolution.
If the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution then we must have a lot
stupid scientist in the world. But I think that estimate is not reasonable. And
I believe most scientist are not even concerned with evolution because it has
no effect on what they do.
Originally posted by RJHinds Creation scientists are those scientists that recognize that the scientific
evidence supports the creation view over the view that everything
came into existence on its own by random chance. There is no scientific
evidence that supports the random chance view.
RJHinds is quite correct; there is not a shred of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by Suzianne Come on, where did you get this list? Did you compile it yourself?
Joining a bandwagon does not make the bandwagon correct.
What I mean to say is, you do not specify if what these people believe is the literal, fundamentalist, ridiculous version of biblical creation including a 6,000 year old Earth or the more sensible evolutionary creation idea.
These persons are agreeing that God is creator and this is true..... but they are not agreeing to all the details of genesis which are not true.
You must at least raise this point when making the post.
24 Aug '11 21:35
Creation Scientists
Back to Top