The WTS says evolution didnt happen. I believe it did. I told my wife that majority of the scientific community believes in evolution. I think this is true but does anyone know where i can get some hard statistics on what percentage of scientists believe in evolution? She said if 95 percent of scientists say its true then she will really start to consider it. Its amazing how sheltered dubs become when all they read is dub literature.
Scientists and evolution
by gringojj 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mrsjones5
From what I have read about evolution I have only seen it stated as a theory, not a fact, and is subject to be proved and disproved. I have no problem being a christian and believing that evolution has it's place in nature.
Josie
-
Mecurious?
She said if 95 percent of scientists say its true then she will really start to consider it. Its amazing how sheltered dubs become when all they read is dub literature.
I say its higher more like 99.99 percent of all scientists believe in evolution....
-
gringojj
I agree it is a theory. Thats why i said i believe it happened. Its just my belief. I agree it probably is 99 percent but how can i prove that? If i ask the elders to show me a credible scientist who can prove creation, who will they come up with?
-
tetrapod.sapien
From what I have read about evolution I have only seen it stated as a theory, not a fact, and is subject to be proved and disproved.
hi josie,
that's very comendable that you can accept evolution and your christian faith. i wish more christians were like you.
just a note, however. evolution is a fact. (Moran, 1993; Gould, 1981) it is also falisifiable, like you say, and i'm glad you mention this, very important. the way a scientist uses the term "theory" is quite different from the way the word "theory" might be used in a court of law. scientific theories are facts. hypotheses are not yet theories. perhaps this will help clear it up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
gringo,
If i ask the elders to show me a credible scientist who can prove creation, who will they come up with?
the savvy elders will probably trot out michael behe. the other ones might mention Fred Hoyles. at any rate, here is a list that goes over their credentials as well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
and yet others might just use the societies publications, which are the easiest out of all creationist output to tear apart. Alanf's writtings do you well here:
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm
and from talk origins, an actual treatment of the creation book by another ex-wit:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html
now, as to how many scientists believe in evolution, i am kicking myself, because i had actually found data on this a while back, but can't find where i saved it. i will continue to look for it. it is indeed very high in the life and nature sciences. in the technological sciences, you will find a slightly higher percentage of creationists, like in computer scientists, but their field does not address evolution anyways.
something else should be noted. it is preferable if you and you wife learn about evolution. this business of wondering how many scientists believe in evolution, is a version of the Argument from Authority. it really doesn't prove anything. it's not about who believes what, it's about the evidence for belief, which i am sure you appriciate. it's like a witness saying that there must be a god because of all the people who believe in him. but this does not work, becuase large groups of people have been known to be wrong before. look at 6 million wits, after all. and saying that 99% of scientists believe in evolution, is only slightly more authoritative. an elder could turn around and compare belief in evolution to belief in false religion at that point in the debate. it is very convinient that the greatest scientists known to man hold evolution to be a fact. famous ones too like Hawkin, Gould, Sagan, Dawkins. the list is very long. it just makes perfect sense once you study it.
i highly recommend www.talkorigins.org as an intro. also a great book as an intro is The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
i hope this helps, and i will still look for that data on the # of scientists who hold evolution to be a fact anyways.
TS
-
mrsjones5
Thank you TS and thanks for the links ~ I love research.
Josie
-
tdogg
Not that the abouve links wont tell this, but I will state the simple position:
Evolution is a fact. It is undeniable that species evolve.
The "theory of evolution" refers to the common hypothesis in place as regards the "mechanism" that causes speices to change over time.
Natural selection is the model put forth by Darwin but since we cant observe or have every link of evidence for a billion years such models will remain "theory".
-
tetrapod.sapien
gringo,
i found this from talk.origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
- Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates.- One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
- Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
(emphasis added) so there you go. more than 95% of scientists hold evolution to be true, even in jesusland.
i hope this helps your wife, cheers,
TS
- Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
-
hooberus
The following letter (written by a NAS member) contains some interesting comments:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2568
An Open Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education By: Dr. Philip S. Skell
Dr. Philip S. Skell
May 12, 2005An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University.
May 12, 2005
Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933
Dear Dr. Abrams:
I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.
All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.
Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.
Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.
Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.
As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).
For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.
In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.
Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.
I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University -
hooberus
It should be noted that while the above letter tends to generally focus specifically on neo-Darwinism, the author also uses the more general term "evolutionary theory" as well. Indeed, the Kanas situation (which the letter is about) is a debate which also focuses on problems with evolution in general.It should also be noted that a significant factor in establishing evolution as a "majority" belief among those with a higher science education is probably the nature of the science education itself - an enducation which presents only the evolutionary interpretation of data, in a dogmatic, repetitious manner, with no alternate interpretations of the same data provided besides the evolutionary ones.