I have no religious agenda in this discussion.
Yes you do, and it is the theme of the thread you are supporting. Your history of posts on this site is a religious agenda, and not a scientific argument.
So, 95 % of scientists believes evolution is probable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes conservative estimate.
Do 95% of people believe the same ?
Yes, concerning concerning the foundation science of evolution. Of course there is disagreement on the details and research concerning different aspects of genetics, paleontology, and the organic chemistry of evolution, and, of course there are unknowns, but that is the grounds of further research, and discoveries in science,
What rule is there that states only scientists are capable of determining this ?
Methodological Naturalism
What rule is there that says lay people cannot determine this ?
Methodological Naturalism. The problem is those who lack the scientific background need to base their objections on science and not a religious agenda.
What is reasonable doubt,
The lack of scientific support for a theory or hypothesis that could falsify a theory or hypothesis..
. . . and what is beyond it ?
More scientific discoveries and research.
In using the term loosely, you circle back to the standard idea that only the initiated priesthood is capable of answering the question.
There is no initiated priesthood in science, because the qualification for scientists is education and the ability to publish their research.. The standard is the standards of Methodological Naturalism and organizations like
American Association for the Advancement of Science
AAAS Home | American Association for the Advancement of Science
The standards of the AAAS are the same for ALL the sciences and engineering including the science of evolution. Law has its own organizations and standards.
What standard for reasonable doubt do each of these scientists apply ? Are they all using the same standard ?
Yes, Methodological Naturalism is standardized worldwide in Science.
In law all these questions are answered. Using the term as you do, none are answered.
Assertion without explanation. Based on this statement you reject science.
So, everybody decides subjectively what a reasonable doubt is, what doubt is, and you wind up with a term applied to science that means nothing.
No science determines it objectively base don objective verifiable evidence.
So, 95% of scientists stating evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt means nothing, without an applicable standard that all are applying.
No, science does not prove anything, fortunately, Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism, and objective verifiable evidence.
Each has an opinion based upon what they think a reasonable doubt is.
By definition science is not based on opinions.