Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[M0nkey]

The top biologists are working on the EES. The problem is saltations.

I’d love to read about it. You always seem to say interesting things but never put any references. :ehh:

 

[edwest2]

I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. I was saying that evolutionary theory describes observed phenomena better than any other theory currently available in biological science. It has many uncertainties and deficiencies, like most theories, but it is the best available. Right now, its more the details in specific areas that are being worked out. The central background theory is the best support for understanding the details of how nature works.

-snip-

When you say “here,” do you mean in this forum, or in the general culture? Particularly in this forum, that statement is erroneous. I have been describing a “version of evolution” that very much includes God and is in fact impossible without Him. And just looking at the statistics (over 80% monotheists in this country, and 40-70% of people in the country believing in evolution, depending on the measure), most people in our culture also don’t believe that evolution disproves the existence of God.

There is no “suddenly” for a population, and rarely for an individual.

We identify new species of bacteria by significant changes to their genetic structure through those gene swaps and recombination, however. It’s true that we haven’t observed single cell organisms becoming multi-cell–except through symbiosis or parasitism. We have seen them operate in “communities,” IIRC. So yes, the leap from single cell to multi-cell has not been observed. It has been inferred from relationships that are similar and are conceivable predecessors, and from existent trace evidences (such as mitochondria in eukaryotic cells).

I just don’t see why there’s such a witch-hunt after evolution and those who see it as most likely, when it is understood in the proper context (limited to science and as a creation of God).
So what if God’s “let there be light” manifested as a Big Bang, creating energy and matter in the universe?
So what if the “days” of Genesis took a really long time, weren’t literal “days” as we know them, and happened a little bit out of reported order? The message of God’s creation and the wonder and power of it is the same regardless of how the reporters shuffle the deck, and Day Four’s creation of distinct lights was God creating stars, giving birth to our Sun, forming the Moon from a collision with a sister planetoid?
So what if God’s method of separating the waters was the formation of an atmosphere through the boiling of various matter on the surface of the earth, retained by earth’s gravity and magnetosphere?
So what if God’s method creating dry ground on earth was volcanism and tectonic geology?
So what if God’s method of creating plants was to start with even a “primordial soup,” gradual formation of amino acids and DNA predecessors, prokaryotic primary producers, single cell organisms becoming dependent on each other and developing into multi-cell in whatever way He chose for that to happen, to eventually bring forth every manner of plant form, carrying on creation endlessly through evolutionary processes?
So what if God’s method of creating fish and birds and all manner of animals was similar?
So what if God chose one of those physical forms and remade it in His image, imbuing it with a soul, dignifying it as His child, giving it dominion and free will, and making a partner for it to give birth to the human race? That’s similar to taking clay and remaking it; in fact, evolution fits very nicely with the idea that man was formed from clay or dust and indeed returns to it.

Evolution maps a process that God used. It would be nothing, would not exist, had God not made and used that process. It cannot explain how that process came to be or why, and it certainly cannot explain the many ways in which God interacts with us, His children, nor legitimately deny them.

“observed phenomena” Like what? Unfortunately, unlike gravity, evolution cannot be observed.

“Evolution maps a process that God used.” You may believe that but what is your support? Humani Generis? Communion and Stewardship?

Pope Benedict was compelled, because of scientists, to point out that while regarding science, we must have the audacity to say we are not haphazard mistakes.

Cardinal Schoenborn was also compelled to write Finding Design In Nature for the New York Times.

I work in the media. Part of my job is to follow it daily. I know its history (see The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr). Science is packaged for public consumption and it exists in a bed of “mainstream” ideas. It is used in different ways. The current massive advertising campaign for a pagan secular culture is in full swing. It’s appearing across all platforms. it is degrading. It is wrong. But it is being done to change public opinion to be more pagan and more secular.

The current version of evolution boils down to this:

You are just another animal.
You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.
Don’t you dare mention Intelligent Design. That’s religion!

No matter how often the Invisible Man in the Sky is brought up in a Catholic forum, the secularists are working out their own mass marketing campaign. Signs on buses: Man created God. This is a conclusion reached by science, they claim. Primitive man needed to survive so his genetic material dreamt up God.

The theory of evolution is not complete and not proven. That’s the latest word from the Church. But secular/atheist evangelism demands that everyone accept it as a fact.

When I say “here,” I mean this forum. The same forces working in the media come here to get converts to the Technocracy. Accept the theory and you will be praised and confirmed, reject or question it and you become a villain.

Peace,
Ed

 

[greg_b]

“observed phenomena” Like what? Unfortunately, unlike gravity, evolution cannot be observed.

It is all the time, are you blind? Plus the fossil record speaks books on the subject

“Evolution maps a process that God used.” You may believe that but what is your support? Humani Generis? Communion and Stewardship?

You got a better idea? Let’s hear it

Pope Benedict was compelled, because of scientists, to point out that while regarding science, we must have the audacity to say we are not haphazard mistakes.

I work in the media. Part of my job is to follow it daily. I know its history (see The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr). Science is packaged for public consumption and it exists in a bed of “mainstream” ideas. It is used in different ways. The current massive advertising campaign for a pagan secular culture is in full swing. It’s appearing across all platforms. it is degrading. It is wrong. But it is being done to change public opinion to be more pagan and more secular.

So let me get this straight: You work for the media but you admit the media is full of lies, so why should I believe a word you say then?

The current version of evolution boils down to this:

You are just another animal.
You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.
Don’t you dare mention Intelligent Design. That’s religion!

No matter how often the Invisible Man in the Sky is brought up in a Catholic forum, the secularists are working out their own mass marketing campaign. Signs on buses: Man created God. This is a conclusion reached by science, they claim. Primitive man needed to survive so his genetic material dreamt up God.

The theory of evolution is not complete and not proven. That’s the latest word from the Church. But secular/atheist evangelism demands that everyone accept it as a fact.

When I say “here,” I mean this forum. The same forces working in the media come here to get converts to the Technocracy. Accept the theory and you will be praised and confirmed, reject or question it and you become a villain.

Peace,
Ed

Typical ideology of a false conspiracy theory: Playing the victim and pretending “the man” is out to get me and cover up “my truth”

 

[ready]

The theory of evolution is not complete and not proven. That’s the latest word from the Church. But secular/atheist evangelism demands that everyone accept it as a fact.

Peace,
Ed

I agree wholeheartedly with the Vatican. I took this view myself before university and most definitely after studying evolution roughly 20 years ago at university. I will not accept evolution as fact no matter how loud or influential a group of scientists might be. I’m not stupid and can see straight for myself.

 

[greg_b]

I agree wholeheartedly with the Vatican. I took this view myself before university and most definitely after studying evolution roughly 20 years ago at university. I will not accept evolution as fact no matter how loud or influential a group of scientists might be. I’m not stupid and can see straight for myself.

If you agree with the Vatican, then you should know the majority of Vatican scientists know evolution to be fact.

 

[edwest2]

It is all the time, are you blind? Plus the fossil record speaks books on the subject

You got a better idea? Let’s hear it

Pope Benedict was compelled, because of scientists, to point out that while regarding science, we must have the audacity to say we are not haphazard mistakes.

So let me get this straight: You work for the media but you admit the media is full of lies, so why should I believe a word you say then?

Typical ideology of a false conspiracy theory: Playing the victim and pretending “the man” is out to get me and cover up “my truth”

Regarding the last sentence, I can see why you would think that. However, my thinking is not just my own, but it is informed by my shepherds in the Church, like Cardinal Schoenborn:

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

The first two paragraphs should be clear enough. The rest of the article reflects my thinking 100%. Ideology has infringed on what should be just science.

It is my desire to warn everyone to what degree false portrayals have corrupted the public mind, leading it to false conclusions. The dignity of the human person and his maker are revealed to us, so we are without excuse. In the current ideological climate, the enemy, the devil, uses whatever weapons that are at hand. The interface between science and the average man is not just about data but interpretations.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

“observed phenomena” Like what? Unfortunately, unlike gravity, evolution cannot be observed.

Wow, Ed, please take some time to become more informed on this subject, or at least slow down and think about things a little more.

Evolution is posited as a result of inductive reasoning, the same type of process common to all the sciences. Let me give you some analogies, showing how the rest of science uses data in similar ways.

1. Astronomy/Physics: we observe astronomical events (supernovae, pulsars, black holes [which cannot be directly observed]) and then use our knowledge of physical principles (optics, radiation, laws of energy and matter, gravity, etc.) to derive a theory that explains what we have observed and predicts how future events may occur. Support for the theories are derived from accuracy in describing past events and/or in predicting future ones. Note that we are so remote from most of these that we cannot observe them clearly and directly, so we make many “guesses,” arriving at our theories.
2. Chemistry/Physics: the interaction of atomic particles is also not directly observed (save perhaps in certain ways in particle accelerators, though even those “observations” are detected through indirect observation based on what the particles are doing to other things). We derive our theories based on what seems to be happening on a more remote, much larger scale.
3. Optics/Physics: the wave/particle dual behavior of light is truly difficult to pin down and observe directly, and we still don’t really know how it can act as both, particularly when coupled with relativity theory and how light interacts with mass and time. When these things were first theorized, very little direct observation was available, but the theories were developed from limited information of observed effects.
4. “Soft” sciences (Sociology, Psychology, even Economics): these take observed effects and try to explain their causes, but exist in such complex systems and operate over such periods of time that it is virtually impossible to truly derive a solid, observed cause/effect in the real world due to the many variables.
5. Medical science: diagnosis of conditions based on symptoms works backwards from observed effects to postulate causes. The human body is such a complex system that this is often an inaccurate business–much less accurate than we Americans, who tend to believe doctors are or should be inerrant, would like to believe.
6. Philosophy: many philosophical arguments take observed conditions and effects and postulate causes.

In similar manner, evolutionary theory takes observed natural phenomena (genetic similarity, convergent or divergent morphological and behavioral traits, variation and mutation, the effects of natural environments and competition on populations, ecological observations like food webs, apparent transitional forms in a limited fossil record, observation of extinctions, expanse of geological time, symbiosis and parasitism, the complexity of life, etc). It then attempts to explain those phenomena, demonstrating relationships among them and how they are affected over time, how they may have come to be.

And while speciation on a eukaryotic level is not clearly observed, microevolution within species and genetic drift has been directly observed.

Evolution is no different from the other sciences in that regard. Philosophical extrapolations from it are the only difference, and are just that: extrapolations beyond the scope of the science.

“Evolution maps a process that God used.” You may believe that but what is your support? Humani Generis? Communion and Stewardship?

My support is the various other scientific theories accepted by the Church, as well. It is about the nature of science. Science is a pursuit of truth because it is an attempt to understand God’s creation. Other aspects of physics, chemistry, and biology map processes that God used (natural laws) and describe what He created.

On what basis do you exclude evolution?

Pope Benedict was compelled, because of scientists, to point out that while regarding science, we must have the audacity to say we are not haphazard mistakes.

Cardinal Schoenborn was also compelled to write Finding Design In Nature for the New York Times.

I work in the media. Part of my job is to follow it daily. I know its history (see The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr). Science is packaged for public consumption and it exists in a bed of “mainstream” ideas. It is used in different ways. The current massive advertising campaign for a pagan secular culture is in full swing. It’s appearing across all platforms. it is degrading. It is wrong. But it is being done to change public opinion to be more pagan and more secular.

You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The scientific theory is acceptable. The philosophical agendas are not. You only discredit your own position, however, by trying to attack a valid theory in addition to the agenda, when you should only be attacking the agenda. You do a disservice to Reason and Truth when you ignore the reasonableness and truth of the scientific theory and attack it when you should only be attacking the unreasonable and untruthful philosophical interpretations of that theory.

 

[Arandur]

The current version of evolution boils down to this:

You are just another animal.
You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.
Don’t you dare mention Intelligent Design. That’s religion!

No matter how often the Invisible Man in the Sky is brought up in a Catholic forum, the secularists are working out their own mass marketing campaign. Signs on buses: Man created God. This is a conclusion reached by science, they claim. Primitive man needed to survive so his genetic material dreamt up God.

The theory of evolution is not complete and not proven. That’s the latest word from the Church. But secular/atheist evangelism demands that everyone accept it as a fact.

As I said, you’re lumping the theory in with the philosophical agenda. You’re muddying the water. Attack only what should be attacked and try to elevate thought and reasonable discourse by making the necessary distinctions between the two.

You are, as I have said before on this forum, doing what the Church was accused of doing (but did not actually do) to Galileo and his theory. The popular notion is that the Church was condemning Galileo’s theory and rejecting science. In reality, (among other things) it was trying to enforce a discipline of reason, refusing to let Galileo claim his theory was fact when he had no evidence for it, only mathematical predictions and formulas. In fact, Copernicus had done the process right before.

You are trying to go far beyond just reiterating (as our Church is doing) that evolution has not been proven fact since there is as yet insufficient evidence. You are trying to condemn it because of a misunderstanding of it and of the Church, the very misunderstanding that people popularly conceive occurred with Galileo. Further, there is much more evidence and rigorous debate for evolution than Galileo had at the time for his theory. So evolution stands stronger than Galileo’s theory did at the time.

Some may indeed have felt threatened by heliocentrism as you feel threatened about evolution. But heliocentrism was discovered to be true. Evolution is likely to follow the same course.

When I say “here,” I mean this forum. The same forces working in the media come here to get converts to the Technocracy. Accept the theory and you will be praised and confirmed, reject or question it and you become a villain.

Oh? Who is doing that in this forum? Who is advocating your atheistic conspiracy theory?

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps you should read Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn. He is quite clear. Any science that denies design in nature is ideology not science. Or you should pick up a copy of his book, Chance or Purpose.

In any case, science is simply something human beings do. To understand it fully as regards man’s origin, one must include other areas of reason we still need. The cart before the horse approach is constantly presented on this forum. Evolution is no baby and it will be dealt with by the only ones who have real credibility on this subject, the Church.

In the past, some have been content to revise the Holy Bible to their liking regarding this. They deny the reason Christ was born. Here, on a Catholic Forum, this part of the issue has greater importance. It is a fact of profound magnitude. But, some prefer to focus their attention on science instead.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ready]

If you agree with the Vatican, then you should know the majority of Vatican scientists know evolution to be fact.

The Vatican is not a democracy, thank God!

 

[Arandur]

Perhaps you should read Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn. He is quite clear. Any science that denies design in nature is ideology not science. Or you should pick up a copy of his book, Chance or Purpose.

Ed, tell me, why do you continue posting on this forum? You’re not even trying to have a discussion with me. I’m listening to you and responding directly. You refuse to do me the courtesy of responding to what I say or ask. It is impossible to have a conversation seeking truth if you will not engage in it.

In any case, science is simply something human beings do. To understand it fully as regards man’s origin, one must include other areas of reason we still need. The cart before the horse approach is constantly presented on this forum. Evolution is no baby and it will be dealt with by the only ones who have real credibility on this subject, the Church.

As I have said more times than I recall on this forum, science is abused and taken beyond its bounds when people try to say anything about the supernatural, positive or negative. Evolution, properly understood, does not. That the Church is even willing to entertain it recognizes that evolution does have a proper context and can indeed be valid. It also recognizes that scientists have credibility on scientific subjects. God is not a scientifically-measurable subject, and so He and His doings remain out of its scope and within the authority of the Church.

In the past, some have been content to revise the Holy Bible to their liking regarding this. They deny the reason Christ was born. Here, on a Catholic Forum, this part of the issue has greater importance. It is a fact of profound magnitude. But, some prefer to focus their attention on science instead.

What Catholics here are claiming that man or any of creation arose without God? What Catholics here are denying the reason Christ was born?

You’re chasing bogeymen, setting up straw men. This is neither honest nor does it serve the dialogue or the pursuit of truth.

 

[M0nkey]

As I said, you’re lumping the theory in with the philosophical agenda. You’re muddying the water.

Again, you cannot divorce this from it’s philosophical agenda. I’ve already pointed out science is deeply rooted in philosophy along with natural observation. So far you have not been able to disprove that. I think the problem is the fact many in schools are not taught to think anymore but a bunch of dubious facts and you have to accept them without question.

 

[greg_b]

Again, you cannot divorce this from it’s philosophical agenda. I’ve already pointed out science is deeply rooted in philosophy along with natural observation. So far you have not been able to disprove that. I think the problem is the fact many in schools are not taught to think anymore but a bunch of dubious facts and you have to accept them without question.

Science is objective, philosophy is theory unless proven otherwise. Learn the difference.

 

[buffalo]

Science is objective, philosophy is theory unless proven otherwise. Learn the difference.

Oh Really! “Science cannot allow a divine foot in the door” is hardly objective. Perhaps the raw research and data is but the human conclusions are not. Over 80% of biologists are atheist or agnostic.

 

[greg_b]

Oh Really! “Science cannot allow a divine foot in the door” is hardly objective.

Yes it is. God created the universe and it’s laws of physics. Since God created science and this world, you can’t use creation to measure the creator, especially since the creator is outside his creation. As an artist, I can fully explain my painting, and while my painting can give me hints about me, it can never fully explain who I am as much as I can myself.

Over 80% of biologists are atheist or agnostic.

Where did you get those BS statistics? Don’t pull fake numbers out of your top hat and claim them as fact.

 

[buffalo]

Yes it is. God created the universe and it’s laws of physics. Since God created science and this world, you can’t use creation to measure the creator, especially since the creator is outside his creation. As an artist, I can fully explain my painting, and while my painting can give me hints about me, it can never fully explain who I am as much as I can myself.

Where did you get those BS statistics? Don’t pull fake numbers out of your top hat and claim them as fact.

Survey research of the nation’s leading scientists seems to corroborate the anti-religious attitude prevalent among biologists. According to a poll of scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science, 57.5% of the biologists who responded were atheists or agnostics and 59.4% disbelieved or were agnostic about personal immortality. The nation’s most elite biologists are even more atheistic. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 94.4% of the NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics. A similar percentage rejects life after death.14 By contrast, the vast majority of Americans continue to believe both in God and in personal immortality.

Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 271-273.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=4511

SOURCE: Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine, “Evolution, Religion and Free Will,” American Scientist, vol. 95 (July-August 2007), pp. 294-297; results of Cornell Evolution Project Survey.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=4551
SOURCE: Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious are America’s College and University Professors?” (Feb. 6, 2007) Available at religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf.

 

[Arandur]

Again, you cannot divorce this from it’s philosophical agenda. I’ve already pointed out science is deeply rooted in philosophy along with natural observation. So far you have not been able to disprove that.

I have indeed challenged that. I provided you plenty of examples of other areas of science, philosophy, and theology where some people took things well beyond their scope. I then pointed out that we don’t and can’t condemn the original idea that they abused in these examples just because of an errant philosophical outgrowth.

Further, I have pointed out that a great majority of Americans believe in God, and a majority also believe evolution. You could call that just confusion, but it does show that most people don’t see a conflict between evolution and God, whatever some peoples’ agenda is trying to push.

I think the problem is the fact many in schools are not taught to think anymore but a bunch of dubious facts and you have to accept them without question.

I agree with that. The indoctrination, persecution of religion and morality, and lack of diversity of thought and critical thinking in schools these days is shocking and appalling. I believe even the Catholic school system needs extraordinary reform, and the public school system should be dismantled and rebuilt entirely. It is a major source of corruption in our society.

 

[buffalo]

And we shouldn’t forget that Eugenie Scott Executive director of the National Center for Science Education is a signer of the Humanist Manifesto III. Now as an atheist it seems odd that she should be pushing the NCSE to encourage teachers to include quotes from religious leaders in support of evolution in the classroom to convince students. This is an intermediate step to teaching humanism in the classroom. We can tolerate a little of God in the classroom as long as it serves our purpose of getting Him completely out of the students lives in the long run.

 

[Arandur]

Oh Really! “Science cannot allow a divine foot in the door” is hardly objective. Perhaps the raw research and data is but the human conclusions are not. Over 80% of biologists are atheist or agnostic.

I believe you meant to include the qualifier “leading,” signifying a small sample size of vocal scientists who are likely so vocal because they have an additional agenda to push. The agenda does encourage greater engagement, and the Godless media will naturally elevate such folk to the rank of “leading,” so that small sample size actually becomes selectively and deliberately mis-leading.

In fact, the percentage of scientists believing in God or not is apparently similar to that way back in 1916, so I don’t think you can chalk this up to modern agendas and evolution. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v91/ai_19332942/

livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html :
“Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists – people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology – said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.” That means around 2/3’s DO believe in God, and about 60% of biologists do as well: “Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don’t believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.” Also: “In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.” Medical doctors have more intimate connection to human biology than anyone else, and 3/4’s is pretty good for them.

Consider some causes for the trends, however, particularly in context of 1916 era results. People who don’t believe in God for whatever reason are likely to still be seeking answers to the questions of life. Where will they seek those answers if they don’t have religion? Probably science and philosophy. Thus, why would you not expect to find a greater proportion of atheists and agnostics (who were so before they became scientists or at least had a predisposition toward unbelief) in the scientific fields? Science would not be the cause in those instances of a lack of faith so much as prior beliefs and predispositions would.

Ah, I just read an ABC article (biased as usual with a misleading headline) that quotes a researcher supporting just what I suggest: "[Elaine Ecklund] is convinced that her research shows that whether a scientist believes in God is determined primarily during childhood, and most of the scientists she studied came from homes where religion was not considered important. Her study, published in the current issue of the journal Social Problems, puts it this way:

“These data reveal that at least some part of the difference in religiosity between scientists and the general population is likely due simply to religious upbringing rather than scientific training or institutional pressure to be irreligious.”"

The ABC article (abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3341576&page=1) also shows that about half have no religious affiliation–which does not believe they don’t believe in God; in fact only 31% said they don’t believe.

In any case, the belief or unbelief of scientists in general or some in particular tells us nothing of the truth of evolutionary theory. At most, it only suggests that we must be wary of agendas. Should we not always be anyway?

 

[buffalo]

I believe you meant to include the qualifier “leading,” signifying a small sample size of vocal scientists who are likely so vocal because they have an additional agenda to push. The agenda does encourage greater engagement, and the Godless media will naturally elevate such folk to the rank of “leading,” so that small sample size actually becomes selectively and deliberately mis-leading.

In fact, the percentage of scientists believing in God or not is apparently similar to that way back in 1916, so I don’t think you can chalk this up to modern agendas and evolution. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n22_v91/ai_19332942/

livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html :
“Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists – people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology – said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.” That means around 2/3’s DO believe in God, and about 60% of biologists do as well: “Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don’t believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.” Also: “In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.” Medical doctors have more intimate connection to human biology than anyone else, and 3/4’s is pretty good for them.

Consider some causes for the trends, however, particularly in context of 1916 era results. People who don’t believe in God for whatever reason are likely to still be seeking answers to the questions of life. Where will they seek those answers if they don’t have religion? Probably science and philosophy. Thus, why would you not expect to find a greater proportion of atheists and agnostics (who were so before they became scientists or at least had a predisposition toward unbelief) in the scientific fields? Science would not be the cause in those instances of a lack of faith so much as prior beliefs and predispositions would.

Ah, I just read an ABC article (biased as usual with a misleading headline) that quotes a researcher supporting just what I suggest: "[Elaine Ecklund] is convinced that her research shows that whether a scientist believes in God is determined primarily during childhood, and most of the scientists she studied came from homes where religion was not considered important. Her study, published in the current issue of the journal Social Problems, puts it this way:

“These data reveal that at least some part of the difference in religiosity between scientists and the general population is likely due simply to religious upbringing rather than scientific training or institutional pressure to be irreligious.”"

The ABC article (abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3341576&page=1) also shows that about half have no religious affiliation–which does not believe they don’t believe in God; in fact only 31% said they don’t believe.

In any case, the belief or unbelief of scientists in general or some in particular tells us nothing of the truth of evolutionary theory. At most, it only suggests that we must be wary of agendas. Should we not always be anyway?

Am I to believe if a biologist with an a priori worldview as an atheist performs research and finds data opposed to his worldview will advance it? Hardly. He will kill it or try to work a conclusion that works to his existing worldview. So this means that the papers that get to peer review are biased. The emerging picture is one that is suspect.