Science only Evolution Thread

[reggieM]

How many of these scientists are biologists?

What number are you looking for?

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think he’s asking for the actual number. “What number do you want it to be?” is OK for creationists/IDers, but it doesn’t work for science.

 

[reggieM]

I think he’s asking for the actual number. “What number do you want it to be?” is OK for creationists/IDers, but it doesn’t work for science.

On the contrary, as I explained elsewhere, science is interested in “what number we want it to be”.

This is precisely why we hear questions like “how many scientists actually think that?”

We also hear from Darwinists all the time. “No scientists think that”. Then when it is pointed out that some scientists do think that, the Darwinist reply – “that’s a tiny minority”.

So, the question – *what number do you want? *fits perfectly well with what passes for evolutionary theory, since these matters are judged on how many believe one thing or another.

If he said that he would accept ID theory if 25 biologists also accepted it, then I would spend the time to show him the names of 25 who do.

So, I’m wondering how many he needs before he’ll accept it.

 

[OldeThom]

I found the post and subsequent links from it to be interesting reading talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Just how important is it to know how many of this scientist of that or this discipline is on what side of the issue? Does quantity really give additional weight to the argument on either side of the issue? (actually I know there are more than two sides here, just using that for simplicity.)

I suppose the same could be said of the theological issues as well.

Respectfully,
Thom

 

[reggieM]

And that book would be?

The Darwin Conspiracy, Roy Davies

Everyone knows that Darwin and Wallace worked together. It’s a very well documented story. I’m not sure what this new book could say that hasn’t been reported in all of the many histories on the subject.

Some new documentary evidence was unearthed – in the form of letters from Wallace to Darwin.

walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/05/24/mail-boat-record-proves-darwin-stole-his-original-ideas-from-a-welsh-scientist-91466-20968207/

Wallace wasn’t able to understand how human intellect could evolve, and so he said it needed to be the work of God. While God is busy putting Jupiter back into place, He is remapping the frontal lobe in humans, and putting flagella on bacteria.

What involvement do you believe God has had in the development of the universe and of human life?

If you read a biology textbook, you will see that natural selection doesn’t explain everything. Darwin and Wallace didn’t know about genes. They hadn’t taken into account genetic drift, the founding effect, and mutations.

There are also ideas like “convergent evolution”, “emergence” and “self-organization” but I wouldn’t call these very firmly established ideas at this point.

 

[reggieM]

Does quantity really give additional weight to the argument on either side of the issue? (actually I know there are more than two sides here, just using that for simplicity.)

We know that minority opinions can sometimes be proven to be correct.

The TalkOrigins site offers their own philosophical opinions on these matters – coming from their own particular bias.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I think he’s asking for the actual number. “What number do you want it to be?” is OK for creationists/IDers, but it doesn’t work for science.

On the contrary, as I explained elsewhere, science is interested in “what number we want it to be”.

Your next statement contradicts the previous one:

This is precisely why we hear questions like “how many scientists actually think that?”

That’s asking for a real number.

so hear from Darwinists all the time. “No scientists think that”.

The only thing that has been applied to here, is the argument that science can work with the supernatural. And as you learned, no scientist does think that.

Then when it is pointed out that some scientists do think that, the Darwinist reply – “that’s a tiny minority”.

The Discovery Institute really led with their chin on that one. Their list of “scientists who doubt Darwin” backfired in two ways. First, some of them on the list didn’t doubt Darwin, and then Project Steve showed what a tiny minority they really were. If you’re in a tiny minority, it’s stupendously dumb to be shouting, “look how many of us there are!”

So, the question – what number do you want? fits perfectly well with what passes for evolutionary theory, since these matters are judged on how many believe one thing or another.

Project Steve is mostly meant to poke fun at those guys, by deflating their “here’s our conclusion; how can we make the facts fit?” ideas. The fact that a creationist/IDer was the one here who assumed that such things are acceptable in science, is the telling point.

If he said that he would accept ID theory if 25 biologists also accepted it, then I would spend the time to show him the names of 25 who do.

It’s not a vote. That’s why the “list of scientists who doubt Darwin” is such a woofer.

So, I’m wondering how many he needs before he’ll accept it.

I think you’d be better advised to find some evidence to show him. If he’s a scientist, there isn’t anything else that will work. Infuriating, um?

 

[Isambard]

What number are you looking for?

The actual number of biologists who can be verified to be against natural selection with relevant published papers.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
I’m not aware of any. There’s Dawkins, but even he doesn’t say that evolution rules out God. Can you think of any at all?

I’m not even thinking “evolution rules out God,” but more along the lines of trying to make the evolution case stronger than the data merits. This could be conscious or subconscious, and most likely tied in with the opposition that evolution has faced since the beginning; whether in reaction to unscientific opposition or due to a kind of scientific triumphalism.

Hmm… I’ve certainly see a lot of science envy, but it’s all one-sided from what I can see. Since evolutionary theory is slightly better supported than gravity (we can observe both phenomena, but we don’t know why gravity works) it seems to me that it would be hard to make the case stronger than that.
But again, I’m just asking, not making any claims.

 

[reggieM]

The actual number of biologists who can be verified to be against natural selection with relevant published papers.

One would need to know the views of every biologist in the world in order to obtain the “actual number”.

 

[rossum]

One would need to know the views of every biologist in the world in order to obtain the “actual number”.

I can see the difficulty. How about a lower bound on the number? How many biologists do you know of that have published peer reviewed papers against natural selection.

rossum

 

[Isambard]

One would need to know the views of every biologist in the world in order to obtain the “actual number”.

No you wouldn’t. Just do a search for their papers. If they haven’t bothered trying to publish their findings, then obviously they themselves don’t believe in the validity of their claims. So whats the number?

 

[buffalo]

No you wouldn’t. Just do a search for their papers. If they haven’t bothered trying to publish their findings, then obviously they themselves don’t believe in the validity of their claims. So whats the number?

The bottom line is that public perception believes this. Now what steps can they take to reverse this or are they even concerned.

 

[Isambard]

The bottom line is that public perception believes this. Now what steps can they take to reverse this or are they even concerned.

The evidence is freely presented and the claims of the anti-evolution crowd have been demolished time and time again. At this point, the majority of the public is being intentionally stupid. Short of banning the idiocy (which would violate freedoms), there is nothing more that can be done.

 

[buffalo]

The evidence is freely presented and the claims of the anti-evolution crowd have been demolished time and time again. At this point, the majority of the public is being intentionally stupid. Short of banning the idiocy (which would violate freedoms), there is nothing more that can be done.

So you are agreeing that most scientists are atheists?

 

[reggieM]

I can see the difficulty. How about a lower bound on the number? How many biologists do you know of that have published peer reviewed papers against natural selection.

rossum

You’ve moved the goalpost here. I stated that there were scientists who disagree that ID is “not science”. The challenge was then shifted (obviously, I was correct with the first statement) to ask what the “actual number of biologists” is who accept ID. When I pointed out the foolishness of this kind of exercise, you’ve now asked an entirely different question.

Given the fact that the peer-review process is biased in favor of the Darwinian model, it’s a bit disingenous to ask for the number of papers that the scientific community has accepted which deny their own dogmatic certainties.

So, the point stands – there are scientists who disagree with Isambard’s opinion on ID.

I’ve posted a list of peer reviewed work that supports ID several times.

The report from the pro-Darwin talk-origins site claimed that 5% of scientists in the U.S. accept the “creationist” position. Talk-origins then sought to reduce the impact of that number by pointing out that the survey included all scientists, so if you count only biologists then the number is smaller.

 

[Isambard]

You’ve moved the goalpost here. I stated that there were scientists who disagree that ID is “not science”. The challenge was then shifted (obviously, I was correct with the first statement) to ask what the “actual number of biologists” is who accept ID.

When were you asked the above? No goalpost was shifted

When I pointed out the foolishness of this kind of exercise, you’ve now asked an entirely different question.

What foolishness? You were asked for scientists in the relevant field’s work.

Given the fact that the peer-review process is biased in favor of the Darwinian model, it’s a bit disingenous to ask for the number of papers that the scientific community has accepted which deny their own dogmatic certainties.[/quoe]

Of course it would favour Natural selection, thats because its the theory that has mountains of evidence. ID is just an untestable hypothesis at best.
reggieM;4098371:

So, the point stands – there are scientists who disagree with Isambard’s opinion on ID.

Your appeal to authority fails given that those scientists specialties are irrelevant to whats being discussed. You could find scientists who deny the Holocaust, but that wouldnt make their opinion relevant as their work doesnt involve history.

I’ve posted a list of peer reviewed work that supports ID several times.

Post it again.

The report from the pro-Darwin talk-origins site claimed that 5% of scientists in the U.S. accept the “creationist” position. Talk-origins then sought to reduce the impact of that number by pointing out that the survey included all scientists, so if you count only biologists then the number is smaller.

Yes, almost zero to be precise when you factor in peer-review works.

 

[Isambard]

So you are agreeing that most scientists are atheists?

Where did I say that? Or do you believe that accepting things about the natural world on evidence is a strictly “atheistic” position?

 

[buffalo]

Where did I say that? Or do you believe that accepting things about the natural world on evidence is a strictly “atheistic” position?

OK - then I will just ask -are most scientists atheists or not?

 

[Isambard]

OK - then I will just ask -are most scientists atheists or not?

No idea. Kinda hard to garner the majority of scientists’ religious opinions, especially given that has it no bearance on their research.

youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY