Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Polymath257]

In order for evolution, you have to create the underlying basis for it, so it does have something to do with evolution.

No, evolution is a theory about how biological species change over time. The Big Bang theory is a description of how the universe as a whole changes. The two are not even close to being connected.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well as I wrote, you cannot create something out of nothing, and it certainly does violate that, or do you know of a new rewrite.

Yet you insist that a god created something out of nothing.

As for the First Law, it only violates if the energy states of the universe are non-zero.

 

[Jim]

A Pew poll has been cited here as a source for saying that 97% of scientists support evolution. I see some possible ways for that to be misunderstood, that I want to discuss. First I want to say that I’m not endorsing Pew polls as a way of knowing what people think. I consider them worse than useless for that purpose. It looks to me like their questions are not designed for that purpose at all, their percentages are largely fictitious, and they are designed only to serve factional and monopoly interests. Pew polls in particular are blatantly designed to paint a false picture, with results that can be cherry-picked to serve factional interests on all sides. I’m only discussing this poll because it was given as a source for what some people are saying about the views of scientists.

I will also point out that Pew itself does not claim that the numbers are actual percentages of any population or sample. They are numbers calculated from the scores in a partly self-selected sample from the American-based members of an American scientific association, excluding primary- and secondary-level educators, in a weighting process in which the results are highly influenced by the personal judgment of the people doing the weighting. Also, the Pew report contains this warning:

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Now I’ll discuss some possible ways that “97% of scientists support evolution” might be misunderstood,
- The same poll of the same scientists also gives a weight of 8% to this response to a question: “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the forum it exists today.”
- The question was an exclusive or question between “Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection” and “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the forum it exists today.” There was no option to choose both. In other words, the poll provides no way of assigning any weight to this answer: that natural processes such as natural selection are designed by a supreme being for the purpose of creating human beings and other in their current forms. It could be any number from zero to 98.
- The question about evolution was also an exclusive or question, between “Human beings and other living things have evolved over time,” and “Human beings and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” There was no option for “Human beings and other species have always existed separately from each other, but all of them have evolved over time. The poll provides no way of assigning a weight to that answer. Again, it could be any number from zero to 98.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Pew poll has been cited here as a source for saying that 97% of scientists support evolution. I see some possible ways for that to be misunderstood, that I want to discuss. First I want to say that I’m not endorsing Pew polls as a way of knowing what people think. I consider them worse than useless for that purpose. It looks to me like their questions are not designed for that purpose at all, their percentages are largely fictitious, and they are designed only to serve factional and monopoly interests. Pew polls in particular are blatantly designed to paint a false picture, with results that can be cherry-picked to serve factional interests on all sides. I’m only discussing this poll because it was given as a source for what some people are saying about the views of scientists.

I will also point out that Pew itself does not claim that the numbers are actual percentages of any population or sample. They are numbers calculated from the scores in a partly self-selected sample from the American-based members of an American scientific association, excluding primary- and secondary-level educators, in a weighting process in which the results are highly influenced by the personal judgment of the people doing the weighting. Also, the Pew report contains this warning:

Now I’ll discuss some possible ways that “97% of scientists support evolution” might be misunderstood,
- The same poll of the same scientists also gives a weight of 8% to this response to a question: “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the forum it exists today.”
- The question was an exclusive or question between “Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection” and “A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the forum it exists today.” There was no option to choose both. In other words, the poll provides no way of assigning any weight to this answer: that natural processes such as natural selection are designed by a supreme being for the purpose of creating human beings and other in their current forms. It could be any number from zero to 98.
- The question about evolution was also an exclusive or question, between “Human beings and other living things have evolved over time,” and “Human beings and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” There was no option for “Human beings and other species have always existed separately from each other, but all of them have evolved over time. The poll provides no way of assigning a weight to that answer. Again, it could be any number from zero to 98.

Other sources were cited as well. If anything the PEW Poll underestimates the percentage of scientists that accept evolution. When it comes to biologists, those that understand this topic the best the percentage is over 99%.

 

[Jim]

Other sources were cited as well. If anything the PEW Poll underestimates the percentage of scientists that accept evolution. When it comes to biologists, those that understand this topic the best the percentage is over 99%.

The only links that I’ve seen in this thread, to any polls, have been directly or indirectly to that Pew poll. Apart from that, all I’ve seen have been a mention of an AAAS poll, and of some polls of biologists, without any links.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only links that I’ve seen in this thread, to any polls, have been directly or indirectly to that Pew poll. Apart from that, all I’ve seen have been a mention of an AAAS poll, and of some polls of biologists, without any links.

I am pretty sure that someone linked a Wiki article on this as well. (It was not me). I could link that article if you wish.

Tell my, why does such a high percentage of people accepting reality bother you?

 

[Jim]

The people who *claim* to be scientists that deny this are either 1) not in biology, 2) not researchers, or 3) otherwise not qualified to make a judgment on this. And this is way above 99%.

Other sources were cited as well. If anything the PEW Poll underestimates the percentage of scientists that accept evolution. When it comes to biologists, those that understand this topic the best the percentage is over 99%.

The only link to a poll in the Wikipedia article is to that same Pew poll. Can either one of you give me a link to a source with a number higher than 99%?

 

[Jim]

... 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.

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.

 

[Jim]

Other sources were cited as well. If anything the PEW Poll underestimates the percentage of scientists that accept evolution. When it comes to biologists, those that understand this topic the best the percentage is over 99%.

I’m not questioning that. I’m just trying to find out where people are getting their numbers from, so I can find out precisely what that means, and what else the sources say about it. Where did you see that the percentage is over 99%? If you can’t or won’t give me a link, at least tell me where you saw it, so I can search for it myself.

 

[Jim]

Do you ever question the misleading / false /
unsourced / unsubstantiated clams made
by creationists?

Do you see any that aren’t already being questioned?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only link to a poll in the Wikipedia article is to that same Pew poll. Can either one of you give me a link to a source with a number higher than 99%?

Why should we? You just dodged a more than reasonable question.

 

[Jim]

@Polymath257 @Subduction Zone Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. Maybe you weren’t saying “more than 99%” as an empirically verifiable fact. Maybe you have some logical reason to think that it must be so. If so, can you explain your reasoning to me? My reasoning, if origin of species is not part of the definition of “evolution,” would be that it’s so much a part of the common framework of biologists that it would be inconceivable for anyone to have any career in biology, without using it. I would not think that anyone who thinks that life forms have not changed at all in thousands of years, would even think of having a career in biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Polymath257 @Subduction Zone Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. Maybe you weren’t saying “more than 99%” as an empirically verifiable fact. Maybe you have some logical reason to think that it must be so. If so, can you explain your reasoning to me? My reasoning, if origin of species is not part of the definition of “evolution,” would be that it’s so much a part of the common framework of biologists that it would be inconceivable for anyone to have any career in biology, without using it. I would not think that anyone who thinks that life forms have not changed at all in thousands of years, would even think of having a career in biology.

You dodged a question. I do not like to help people that use that improper tactic.

 

[Jim]

K

As for the 99% it is not going to be easy to
get numbers, but, try looking at it this way:

Not a one who chooses to dispute ToE
can provide datum point one for their belief.
Zero, none.

The noted scientist, a Dr. K Wise (paleontologist)
that I mentioned to poly there is a yec?

How does he deal with the data problem?
Quote-"even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec, I would still be a yec as
that is what the bible seems to indicate".

Thank you. At least you tried to give me an explanation for the 99%, and you weren’t even one of the ones who made the claim.

 

[Jim]

As for the 99% it is not going to be easy to get numbers, but, try looking at it this way:

Not a one who chooses to dispute ToE can provide datum point one for their belief. Zero, none.

The noted scientist, a Dr. K Wise (paleontologist) that I mentioned to poly there is a yec?

How does he deal with the data problem? Quote-"even if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I would still be a yec as that is what the bible seems to indicate".

I think now that you might be the best person for me to talk to about this, if you’re willing. You’re the only one who has even tried to offer any explanation for the 99%.

When I first read “among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal,” I wanted to know if that support includes denying that the species were all created separately. That’s why I was asking what polymath meant by “evolution,” and asking him for a source, so I could see for myself. All the links he gave me led one way or another back to the same Pew survey. Then when he said that the number for biologists is more than 99%, I thought that he might have gotten that from another source, so I asked him for that one also. He also said that there were some surveys of biologists, and I couldn’t find any, so I asked for those.

A while ago I did some more searching and found this:
https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-cont.../07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf

That has 99% for working Ph.D scientists and for active research scientists.

The possibility of thinking that humans and other species were created separately, and that they have evolved since then; and the possibility of thinking that natural processes are designed by God to work the way they do; were excluded from consideration in the questionnaires. The surveys do not provide any way to assign weights to those possibilities , other than putting them somewhere between zero and 97, 98 or 99%.

 

[Polymath257]

That has 99% for working Ph.D scientists and for active research scientists.

The possibility of thinking that humans and other species were created separately, and that they have evolved since then; and the possibility of thinking that natural processes are designed by God to work the way they do; were excluded from consideration in the questionnaires. The surveys do not provide any way to assign weights to those possibilities , other than putting them somewhere between zero and 97, 98 or 99%.

Sorry, but you really think professional scientists would assent to that in any significant percentage?

 

[Audie]

I think now that you might be the best person for me to talk to about this, if you’re willing. You’re the only one who has even tried to offer any explanation for the 99%.

When I first read “among the scientific community that studies these questions in detail, the support for evolution is universal,” I wanted to know if that support includes denying that the species were all created separately. That’s why I was asking what polymath meant by “evolution,” and asking him for a source, so I could see for myself. All the links he gave me led one way or another back to the same Pew survey. Then when he said that the number for biologists is more than 99%, I thought that he might have gotten that from another source, so I asked him for that one also. He also said that there were some surveys of biologists, and I couldn’t find any, so I asked for those.

A while ago I did some more searching and found this:
https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-cont.../07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf

That has 99% for working Ph.D scientists and for active research scientists.

The possibility of thinking that humans and other species were created separately, and that they have evolved since then; and the possibility of thinking that natural processes are designed by God to work the way they do; were excluded from consideration in the questionnaires. The surveys do not provide any way to assign weights to those possibilities , other than putting them somewhere between zero and 97, 98 or 99%.

"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.

support includes denying that the species
were all created separately.

Call that "not discussing magic"

Or other things for which there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever

I dont see much purpose in a survey.

Science is not, as they say, a popularity contest.
At one time there was just Darwin and Wallace. Now
there are more who accept the theory as having
held up to all challenges.

It doesn't freakin' make any difference what the
exact percentages are, now or then or whenever.

If you care, you pursue it.

What does matter is that none of those who deny
or attempt to refute or dont believe, or whatever-
not a one of them has datum point one to refute
the ToE. Generally, these seem people trapped
in their religious / magical thinking and no amount
of education can break the spell.*
Again, see Dr K Wise paleontologist for a example.

There may be some with non religious reasons,
I dont know, but those reasons are NOT SCIENCE
because they are not about data. There is no
data against ToE.

As far as I can see you are just obsessively
strainin' at the gnats. If it matters to you, go
pursue it till you are satisfied that you have
accomplished-what?


* I have a dear friend, a lady from Philippines.
She grew up poor, on a rice farm, but brains
and iron will brought her a good education and
a good life in the USA.

She's told me of her struggles with the ignorance
and superstition of her youth. Most of the time,
she has been able to see the sense of something
and say, "Oh, that is just a superstition, I do not
believe it now!" (she long since quit thinking an
eclipse is a lizard eating the moon)
But some things, like a dread of being outside in the
dark, she just cannot get over it. She knows there
are no ogtah, or other things to get her, but she
is scared anyway.

So, sure, people raised with fundyism, they
can have it so deeply planted in their innocent
little heads that they can never escape.

Those are the scientists who go in the one
percent, or three percent.

If that is important to you, go study that on
your own. Why are you even asking about it
here?

 

[Audie]

Sorry, but you really think professional scientists would assent to that in any significant percentage?

I cant stand it when a jerk like you comes along
and says in two lines what it took me a dozen
paragraphs to say!!!

 

[Audie]

Wow - that is almost exactly the sentiment I received from usfan when he started his thread on common descent - he says he wants serious scientific discussion, I post a group of pertinent abstracts and offer a brief overview/conclusion, and he dismisses it with, in essence 'nice copy paste! I'm not going through all that!'

It is almost as if they have all read a pamphlet on bad debate tactics....

They rather obviously have all read the same
source material from such as AIG. They
do not have the capacity to come up with any
of that on their own, for lo, none have studied
evolution, and none can explain the objections
they parrot.

 

[Audie]

Yet you insist that a god created something out of nothing.

As for the First Law, it only violates if the energy states of the universe are non-zero.

Great example of the fundy who tanked up with
creofacts at a creosite, and then spews them with
no idea what he is talking about. That 2LOT thing
is so lame and stupid, but, them ignorant itchin'
ears lap it up (try to visualize that!) like is was gospel.