For scientists who accept evolution

[RichardR]

On this site they are trying to see how many scientists in four days they can get to sign up to say they accept evolution. The four days ends 2.09pm EST tomorrow (Saturday Oct 1).

They are going to compare the number they get with the Discovery Institute’s (that's the intelligent design group) 400 scientists they say signed to oppose evolution - except that it took them FOUR YEARS.

So far they have over 4500 signatures. If you’re a scientist go there and sign!

 

[Mojo]

Why not stick with Steves?

 

[mummymonkey]

I liked this entry:

Dr. Osama bin Laden - Terrorism - Muslim - School of Hard Knocks

 

[eri]

Thanks for the tip! Now if they get around to quoting this list as much as the Discovery Institute did theirs, I'll be proud to say I was one of the many! Especially since it seems this is about all I can do to further the cause at the moment.

 

[Jeff Corey]

As for "Denomination", I put "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster". I wonder how many of those they will get?

 

[Diamond]

I think all of the joke entries will be used by the Discovery Institute and creationists to show that the petition is fake.

In any case, the notion that evolution is taught because of its popularity with scientists is false and fallacious. Science is not decided on by majority, but by coherent theory underpinned by carefully done experiment or observation that can be independently replicated or objectively reviewed.

I fear that this poll will be used by creationists to create the impression that belief in evolution is a philosophical mirror image of the belief in creation.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think all of the joke entries will be used by the Discovery Institute and creationists to show that the petition is fake.

I think that the joke entries will be removed.

However, if you feel that way, go and put a few fake signatures on the D.I's list.

In any case, the notion that evolution is taught because of its popularity with scientists is false and fallacious.

Not entirely.

Science is not decided on by majority, but by coherent theory underpinned by carefully done experiment or observation that can be independently replicated or objectively reviewed.

True. And so for those who are not themselves scientists, the way to find out whether evolution occurred and how would be to ask the people who understand the "coherent theory" and have "carefully" done the "experiment or observation" and who perform the "independent replication" or "objective review". And these people are, of course, scientists. We pay them to find things out for us: that's what they're for.

I fear that this poll will be used by creationists to create the impression that belief in evolution is a philosophical mirror image of the belief in creation.

They try to do that anyway.

However, the point is to focus on the disparity between the two responses. The creationists have tried to create the impression that science is boiling with controversy over evolution whereas a more accurate statement would be "science has a lunatic fringe". The list of Steves makes the same point.

I think the petition is basically a good idea. But even if it was a bad idea, then nonetheless given that it exists one does more good than harm by signing it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This quote from the website seems applicable:

I need to stress that this petition does not mean that scientific issues are decided by majority vote. For example NCSE rarely promotes such petitions that rely for their effect on sheer number. You see having locals sign a petition about a local issue is okay, numbers matter there; and having scientific societies issue formal statements is okay; having Nobel laureates write letters is okay; making fun of creationists' spurious appeals to authority (a la Project Steve) is okay; but trying to amass a huge pile of signatures from various people makes it seem as though these issues should be decided by majority vote. What this petition does show is that this statement is the consensus of informed scientific opinion. Our media, which is oddly portrayed as liberal, often overlooks the huge consensus of scientists against the presentation of "intelligent design" as fact in the science classroom: That's what these signatories represent.

On subjects in which I do not have knowledge or expertise I rely on trained professionals to make my mind up for me. That's what they're paid for. It is therefore reassuring to the public to know that scientists have made their minds up and that there is not in any real sense a "debate".

 

[Jeff Corey]

Dr. Adequate,
I take umbrage at your implication that Pastafarianism is a joke. You should be whipped with a slimy noodley appendage.
If Pastafarianism is a joke, what does that make all those other denominations? Who ever heard of Wiccan, Pagan, Anglican, Baptist or Catholic?
Those are real religions?
Gimme a break.
And I think that any petition should not include "Denomination" and have tried to email the site to make that point. What is the point of including that, anyway?
If a significant number of people say "none", "atheist" or "agnostic", that will provide fodder to the bleevers if it is published.
"Godless atheists and unbelievers support Darwinism."

 

[Dr Adequate]

I take umbrage ...

Well put it back.

at your implication that Pastafarianism is a joke. You should be whipped with a slimy noodley appendage.

I'm a devout Monstrist myself. By "joke entries", I mean people who don't exist or aren't really scientists. All hail the FSM!

And I think that any petition should not include "Denomination" and have tried to email the site to make that point. What is the point of including that, anyway?
If a significant number of people say "none", "atheist" or "agnostic", that will provide fodder to the bleevers if it is published.

I'm inclined to agree on this point. But let's wait and see what the results actually are.

 

[stamenflicker]

It is therefore reassuring to the public to know that scientists have made their minds up and that there is not in any real sense a "debate".

Dr. A,

Are there any good debates between these groups online that a person can actually read-- I mean real debates? Or do they never debate each other? All I tend to see is one website telling the other website what's wrong with the other one's theory.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

From the site:

"Unfortunately, the majority, 83%, of these "scientists" are not schooled in the fields that utilize evolutionary theory in detail, nor even in science, and they are not qualified to present their ideas in a way other than personal opinion."

So, utilization is the key here? That hardly seems "scientific" in and of itself. Even if that stat were true, what do you do with the other 17%, besides of course keeping them from publishing anything.

Flick

 

[RichardR]

Dr. A,

Are there any good debates between these groups online that a person can actually read-- I mean real debates? Or do they never debate each other? All I tend to see is one website telling the other website what's wrong with the other one's theory.

Flick

You get a few debates at Infidels.

 

[Tez]

I signed it, but to be honest I dont really see the benefit of having scientists who are not biologists signing such a thing...

 

[delphi_ote]

The creationists have tried to create the impression that science is boiling with controversy over evolution whereas a more accurate statement would be "science has a lunatic fringe".

That lunatic fringe has nothing to do with science.

 

[chipmunk stew]

From the site:

"Unfortunately, the majority, 83%, of these "scientists" are not schooled in the fields that utilize evolutionary theory in detail, nor even in science, and they are not qualified to present their ideas in a way other than personal opinion."

So, utilization is the key here? That hardly seems "scientific" in and of itself. Even if that stat were true, what do you do with the other 17%, besides of course keeping them from publishing anything.

Flick

Maybe their phrasing was bad, but I personally don't consider the opinion of, for instance, "James Menart, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University" or "Robert Marks, Professor, Signal & Image Processing, University of Washington" to carry much weight in any discussion about the life sciences.

As for the other 17%, 17% of 400 is 68. The point being, a mere 68 people in the WORLD qualified to give an informed opinion on evolutionary theory were willing to sign the petition [eta:] "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" (was "supporting ID"). Even giving them all 400 (WORLDWIDE, don't forget), you have to admit the supposed "controversy" over evolution is a farce.

 

[stamenflicker]

Chipmunk,

As for the other 17%, 17% of 400 is 68. The point being, a mere 68 people in the WORLD qualified to give an informed opinion on evolutionary theory were willing to sign the petition [eta:] "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" (was "supporting ID"). Even giving them all 400 (WORLDWIDE, don't forget), you have to admit the supposed "controversy" over evolution is a farce.

Assuming that the numbers are in fact accurate and that no other factors are masking these numbers, let's apply the same formula to some other theory, say general relativity. Surely there are 68 physicists out there who question whether the theory of relativity is the best theory to fit the data, maybe more. Even if there were six, not sixty, the issue really boils down to whether or not the dominate group of scientists has the right to form an anti-group against those skeptics, and further to bar their publications from scientific journals. This is scientific imperialism, not good science as groups like the discovery institute claim.

The idea that a group could have so much power as to punish an editor for "allowing" one of these papers through the iron curtain, is itself pretty damning. I would merely link to this editor as the first example of what the "unbiased" Darwinism community does with anyone appearing to dissent with its fundamentalist tenants. Even the Office of Special Counsel verified his claims upon investigation:

http://www.rsternberg.net/


Sad thing is that the guy is not even a creationist.

Flick

ETA - I'm not claiming the discovery institute is "good science" only pointing out that their claims of a scientific dictatorship are not too far fetched.

 

[stamenflicker]

Maybe their phrasing was bad, but I personally don't consider the opinion of, for instance, "James Menart, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University" or "Robert Marks, Professor, Signal & Image Processing, University of Washington" to carry much weight in any discussion about the life sciences.

But would you consider a young patent clerk's (with C+ grades) opinion on theoretical physics any different? I think ideas really do have to be weighed by their own measure alone. Which is why young earth creationists are literally laughed off the podium.

Flick

 

[Rolfe]

Damn, I'd have gone in and added myself as a serious entry, but it's too late now, and I was sunning myself in the middle of the Mediterranean at the seminal moment....

Rolfe.

 

[chipmunk stew]

But would you consider a young patent clerk's (with C+ grades) opinion on theoretical physics any different?

Einstein didn't sign a petition asserting his position regarding someone else's ideas. He did science.
eta: If all he had done in the field of theoretical physics was sign a petition, then no I wouldn't consider it any different.

I think ideas really do have to be weighed by their own measure alone.

ID defines itself in contrast to modern evolutionary theory (totally mis-labelled "Darwinism"). So by your own standard, you shouldn't give it much weight at all.

Which is why young earth creationists are literally laughed off the podium.

...and why only 68-400 qualified people were willing to sign the ID petition.