NY Time OpEd piece on science denial

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Chill!

Rick was making a joke.

.

I wasn't.... he won't comment when faced with the truth...... and the truth isn't what he wants it to be.

Reminds me of an old movie line ---- Some people just can't handle the truth.

[oldguystudent]

But that does not mean that its intended teachings are erroneous.

As it exists today, the bible is a book. compiled, translated, and edited over the course of centuries by men with their own best interests at heart. That doesn't necessarily mean that the teachings are bad, but neither does it mean that the book, to the letter, is divinely inspired by god, infallible, and to be taken literally (often times viewed with weird time stamped coded messages).

The way I personally see the bible today is that the four gospels (although with some contradictory details among them) have got some pretty good stuff on guidance for living a good life. Basically, be excellent to each other and stop hoarding shit and being all gaudy about it. Also, it's totally legit to hang out with your friends and have a little BBQ's fish and wine. Therefore, I tailgate.

The old testament is full of violence, polygamy, slavery, and an irrationally jealous god. I'm in the school that says if we're going to cherry pick laws like no homosexuality, then we should be indiscriminate and abolish shellfish (which oddly I don't eat as a vestige of my own upbringing), mixed fabrics, shaves, and women's haircuts, while we should be aggressively taking slave girls and marrying our dead brothers' wives. By the standards of most modern Christian official dogma, the whole thing is either ALL right, or it's not. Stop using the parts you like just because something makes you feel icky.

Paul just, well, Paul is personally responsible for being the catalyst that brought about the reaction of my becoming a very, very non-religious person. If religion is going to be something that actively makes my life unpleasant, nay, miserable, just because my chosen deity wants me to live as such, then I'm out.

Alllll that said, to anyone here who is religious, I say good on you. I have no problems whatsoever with it, as long as you have no problems whatsoever with my lack of religion. Unfortunately, too many beliefs dictate that people DO care and people MUST actively proselytize and/or condemn upon failure to convert.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Clearly the Bible uses figures of speech . . . the Bible speaks of "escaping by the skin of one's teeth" (Job 19:20), a figure we still commonly use thousands of years later. This is obviously not literal, but a more descriptive and emphatic way of saying one has barely escaped. if we speak of "sunrise" or "sunset," no one blasts us of being scientifically inaccurate, although it certainly would be if we intended it literally. When the Bible speaks of "four corners of the earth," it only does so in two passages that are clearly highly figurative--the point being that, on a map, the furthest places would be at the four corners. Keep in mind that of one of those two passages (Isaiah 11:12), the same book also refers to the "circle," or "globe/sphericity," "of the earth" (Isa. 40:22)--so one of the two was obviously intended figuratively.

So if you mean by your statement that you shouldn't take everything in the Bible literally, I agree with you. But that does not mean that its intended teachings are erroneous.

.

I never said that either... but the Pope then took every word as 100% accurate and so do some ministers today (listen to them)

They used " the four corners of the earth" comment to indicate the world was flat.... and they excommunicated and killed people that disagreed with them... They considered his word infallible. Leviticus is a book of laws.... good luck at keeping all of them..... or even staying out of prison if you do. .... There are reasons quoted there to justify doing your wife or kids in... (murder).

I am far from anti-Christian.... ( I am one) but the history of Christianity is not all that great... and these nutty posts that we should go back to the Christians beliefs of our past is insane... We have a lot to be ashamed of... and those using odd passages to justify those actions. If we went back we could justifiy the KKK from the Bible Belt, Nazis, racism, war, hangings, torture.... all of which occured using Christianity as a justification..... The German passon plays portrayed the Jews as responsible for the crucifixion. It was a factor is what happened in Germany [they admit it.. even at Oberammergrau, been there] Now we have the ultra-right claiming we are far less Christian than before and we have might have the anti-Christ as President. Even the minister of First Baptist -Dallas has claimed in his sermon Obama is the forerunner of the anti-Christ... How stupid and biggoted. He is no Christian in my view... what happened to "Thou shall not bear false witness." A lot of that going around especially in emails. The Dallas minister is no better than the medieval Popes. ( a hypocritical liar ) These idiots make Christianity look bad.

Repeating... I am Christian.... just dislike these guys who just make up things plus claim to be more Christian than most of us.

..

Edited January 23, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTFan23]

So we should just do nothing about it since other countries might not do anything about it? Isn't this something we could flex our "global leader" muscles on?

Where did I say we should do nothing? I was just trying to point out that all the efforts the US tries to make could be for nothing if other countries do little or nothing. Edited January 23, 2013 by UNTFan23

[MeanGreenTexan]

You sure?

I hope so.

[Eagle61]

.

I wasn't.... he won't comment when faced with the truth...... and the truth isn't what he wants it to be.

Reminds me of an old movie line ---- Some people just can't handle the truth.

I have enjoyed the jokes on this topic; after all religion is one big joke. I have gained a new respect for this site; some very thoughtful people on here. Now if we could just stop the sniping at each other. And I misspelled "surprising" on my earlier post. Which is surprising to me because I have taken a swipe at people for their mispellings here. But, that said, if you examine any religion closely, you will see that they are all hoaxes. You will come closer to getting water to run uphill, or someone to walk on water, or part the Red Sea, or a flood to cover the earth and so on and so on.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I have enjoyed the jokes on this topic; after all religion is one big joke.

Now if we could just stop the sniping at each other.

Hmmm . . . No irony there.

You will come closer to getting water to run uphill, or someone to walk on water, or part the Red Sea, or a flood to cover the earth and so on and so on.

I fail to understand what you are saying here.

[Eagle61]

Irony -- yes, I misspelled misspell. I wasn't sure so I thought I would cover both bases. Actually a typo, I noticed it as soon as I hit post. On the global warming thing, I am not a denier at all, but one fact is that 5000 years ago all the glaciers in North America melted; 4000 years ago they re-froze. So we had some real warming starting about 5000 years ago, followed by the current climate (approx.) 1000 years later. What caused the warming then? I saw this on "Geologic Journey" on the Discovery channel. It was in an interview with a couple of guys from the USGS. They offered no explanation. We are currently ending a 25,000 year cycle of ice ages, due to start another soon, from a geologic time standpoint. So the warming gasses we put in the atmosphere may save our butts when the factors for an ice age line up. It could be another 1000 years, but it is coming. The earth won't support 6-8 billion people if the ice cap extends to Kansas. Ice ages are caused by three things that we know: The tilt or wobble of the earth, orbit around the sun, and the output of the sun. A 1000 years might be enough to get our congress to do something.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Those that deny global warming are nuts (my opinion) Just look at the glaciers up north that have melted and tops of mountains that once had snow year around and don't now. To me is all about ?why?.... natural as you (eagle61) pointed out or man-caused. Maybe we can change it some... maybe not... and true if other countries do nothing ... then what we do might be rather meaningless. But to do something than nothing wish later you had....... Sort of like learning to swim....maybe you will NEED to know how .... what if you do... maybe you should learn... never know what is coming, you might fall into the lake.. Both sides of this issue has their extreme nuts.

One quick religion comment... those guys like the Dallas First Baptist minister do more harm than good..... they drive reasonable people from their church.... Those type of guys is what caused me to switch from being a Baptist.... that and getting way too political.... and their insane criticism of a person having beer even with a meal... and a few other personal issues... Interesting they would scream like crazy if government tried to tell them what to do ... but the telling the government and people what to do about government is ok....... hypocritical again.

Edited January 24, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GTWT]

Irony -- yes, I misspelled misspell. I wasn't sure so I thought I would cover both bases. Actually a typo, I noticed it as soon as I hit post. On the global warming thing, I am not a denier at all, but one fact is that 5000 years ago all the glaciers in North America melted; 4000 years ago they re-froze. So we had some real warming starting about 5000 years ago, followed by the current climate (approx.) 1000 years later. What caused the warming then? I saw this on "Geologic Journey" on the Discovery channel. It was in an interview with a couple of guys from the USGS. They offered no explanation. We are currently ending a 25,000 year cycle of ice ages, due to start another soon, from a geologic time standpoint. So the warming gasses we put in the atmosphere may save our butts when the factors for an ice age line up. It could be another 1000 years, but it is coming. The earth won't support 6-8 billion people if the ice cap extends to Kansas. Ice ages are caused by three things that we know: The tilt or wobble of the earth, orbit around the sun, and the output of the sun. A 1000 years might be enough to get our congress to do something.

Eagle61,

It's true that the Earth's climate is always changing. It always has. What's different now in that the change is due in large part to human activity - the release of fossil carbon into our atmosphere. The mean temperature of the earth will increase, precipitation patterns will alter, sometimes dramatically, & we will live in a more challenging environment. All for reasons that we could do something about - if we have the political will.

It boils down to whether your children & grandchildren's wellfare mean more than your lifestyle. Are we willing to forego short-term profit in favor of long-term benefit? Sadly, man has seldom chosen long-term consequences over short-term gain.

[UNTLifer]

As it exists today, the bible is a book. compiled, translated, and edited over the course of centuries by men with their own best interests at heart. That doesn't necessarily mean that the teachings are bad, but neither does it mean that the book, to the letter, is divinely inspired by god, infallible, and to be taken literally (often times viewed with weird time stamped coded messages).

The way I personally see the bible today is that the four gospels (although with some contradictory details among them) have got some pretty good stuff on guidance for living a good life. Basically, be excellent to each other and stop hoarding shit and being all gaudy about it. Also, it's totally legit to hang out with your friends and have a little BBQ's fish and wine. Therefore, I tailgate.

The old testament is full of violence, polygamy, slavery, and an irrationally jealous god. I'm in the school that says if we're going to cherry pick laws like no homosexuality, then we should be indiscriminate and abolish shellfish (which oddly I don't eat as a vestige of my own upbringing), mixed fabrics, shaves, and women's haircuts, while we should be aggressively taking slave girls and marrying our dead brothers' wives. By the standards of most modern Christian official dogma, the whole thing is either ALL right, or it's not. Stop using the parts you like just because something makes you feel icky.

Paul just, well, Paul is personally responsible for being the catalyst that brought about the reaction of my becoming a very, very non-religious person. If religion is going to be something that actively makes my life unpleasant, nay, miserable, just because my chosen deity wants me to live as such, then I'm out.

Alllll that said, to anyone here who is religious, I say good on you. I have no problems whatsoever with it, as long as you have no problems whatsoever with my lack of religion. Unfortunately, too many beliefs dictate that people DO care and people MUST actively proselytize and/or condemn upon failure to convert.

I appreciate your beliefs and honesty, but your views on The Bible and the roles/meanings of the Old and New Testament are just a little off base.

[oldguystudent]

but your views on The Bible and the roles/meanings of the Old and New Testament are just a little off base.

According to whom? You have faith that your take on the book is the correct take. Faith, by definition, being strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

I've read this book, several times as a matter of fact. I've had "instruction" both in school and in church over the first couple decades of my life, and I've come away with my interpretation of it.

If there is, however, only one correct take, and there are so many disagreements on what that one take is, and the book is indeed divinely inspired, then I should think God should've taken a little more care in making his message a little easier to understand.

I reiterate that the bible is translated and compiled over centuries by men. It's not some single volume, written in 21st century English that God placed under the student bleachers at Denton Guyer. When people in power go about choosing books that are to rule the lives of their populace, it is, as a general rule, not usually the hand of God that guides their decision making.

There are actually two issues at hand here.

One is religion. History, experience, and observation tell me that religion is something I want to stay far, far away from. The definition of that being an organization of people drawing up rules which they wish to impose upon me to dictate how I live my life, and charging me cash for doing so.

The other is the existence of God. I'll grant a little more leeway here in that given the sheer size of the observable universe (about 90 billion light years in diameter), and knowing that there is probably just as much, if not more than that beyond what is observable, that anything is possible. But, when I see photographs like this one, and start wrapping it around my feeble little mind that each of those dots is an entire galaxy, and that that photo is but a pinpoint of sky, I start to get a sense of the size of the universe on the scope of the total perspective vortex, and start thinking that there is a LOT of stuff out there for this all powerful omnipotent god to be caring about what a couple billion people, less significant than the nucleus of a simple atom on a universal scale, go about doing with their time.

I know this much. If I were God, I wouldn't make it so hard for my creation of humanity to agree with each other. I'd make my message a lot clearer. I'd want my followers to be happy, not exclusive, paranoid, and constantly comparing their own morality with the perceived lack thereof of other faiths. If there is the one true Judeo Christian God, he's done a poor job of forsaking a huge portion of the world population in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and that's just not cricket.

[MeanGreenTexan]

...

I know this much. If I were God, I wouldn't make it so hard for my creation of humanity to agree with each other. I'd make my message a lot clearer. I'd want my followers to be happy, not exclusive, paranoid, and constantly comparing their own morality with the perceived lack thereof of other faiths. If there is the one true Judeo Christian God, he's done a poor job of forsaking a huge portion of the world population in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and that's just not cricket.

Hey OldGuy,

I think you're missing a critical component in all of this: the fallen state (or total depravity) and free will of man.

And I'm happy, not exclusive, not paranoid, and the only time I have to compare my morality with other faiths is when the talking points are brought up.

I love church history, and looking back on it, it really shows how far man has fallen. Ever since Constantine endorsed it, the church was USED by many men as political/social advantage... as it is to this day: Benny Hinn, Westboro, et al. The church has constantly gone through reformations due to the observed corruptions along the way and the boldness of 1 person or a group of people to say, "This is wrong".

Africa has been ministered to since the book of Acts, and the newest country in Africa, South Sudan, was created as a largely Christian population. There are lots of Christians in Africa!

Asia (assuming you mean East Asia) really was not ministered to until Hudson Taylor came in, and it is really growing there now.

Middle East... well, I think the Crusades really hardened the hearts of people, especially Muslims, in the Middle East. The Crusades, although a noble idea, became perverted almost immediately and are a huge black eye on the Christian faith. The Middle East is a stronghold for the Muslim faith now... but there are missionaries there.

I'd love to discuss more with you if you'd like sometime. And don't worry, I'm not trying to 'convert' you.

I think a common mis-conception about the Christian faith is that there is nothing behind it (just a set of morals that pompous, exclusive people live by), & Christians are dumb/ignorant. Sadly, many Christians are, and all 'christians' are. I'm not one of those people.

But Theology is fascinating and there are VOLUMES of it out there written by very intelligent men, starting with Paul. I believe a Christian should know why he/she believes what they believe so that when discussions like this one pop up, they don't make us all look like doofuses.

[CMJ]

Anyone ever see Terrence Malick's Tree of Life? I realize his style of filmmaking is very polarizing, but it's a pretty compelling piece of cinema trying to delve into the whole faith question and how science fits in. I am not religious, but I still found it moving and a window into how religious people can also really dig science. For that matter I thought Life of Pi tackled religion from a different, but no less interesting way.

Anyway, I would say I am an atheistic agonostic. Basically I don't believe in the christian God (my feeling on the Bible is somewhat close to oldguystudent's), but don't feel like the existance of something can totally be dismissed. Even after knowing the big bang, multiverse theory, string theory, whether every black hole is just another universe with its own physics, and all that really high level math/science that physicists themselves can't agree on - has anyone really come up with a decent explanation of how all matter ended up in a single dot no larger than a fraction of an atom...and what caused it to explode in the first place? Not that I have seen.

Now, I don't think some divine creator would give much of a crap about us or any other life on any other world (which given the size of the universe I am sure there is...and given the size of the universe I am sure we'll never find). It'd be more like the Deist idea of God.

Edited January 24, 2013 by CMJ

[oldguystudent]

When you start getting into multiverse, everything exists somewhere. Christian Gods, Hindu Gods, unicorns that poop skittles, and a North Texas football team that is on a 1,000 game win streak.

[GrayEagle]

Thank God there are still some like Mean Green Texan that still understand that there was a divine Creator and there is meaning and purpose to our lives.

I do not understand how anyone can be atheistic but if you are...fine. But, to blasphemy God to those of us who do believe is inciteful. I can understand being agnostic because there is no one who knows about the creation of man for certain.

Man is inherently religious. Every civilization has realized that there is a power greater than themselves. Man did not create man. Neither did man evolve through random selection to any great extent. Math is a science. Test the Laws of Probability on man evolving from an amoeba/protozoa to the complex creature he is today. Furthermore, show me the remains of those bodies that failed to evolve perfectly.

Science is fantastic. It has helped us prolong life and make it easier. It is virtually infallible in testing life through the five senses but it does not cover everything. According to science, nothing else exists that can't be proven. So love, joy, hate, and happiness, to name a few do not exist according to science because they cannot be tested or measured. There are many things that exist in this world that we do not understand.

The vast majority of the people on earth believe in a higher power and have since time immemorial. If they did not feel that way religion would have died out centuries ago. If religion did not make us feel better about ourselves and our families and did not give us moral values it wouldn't exist. It has survived for thousands of years and it is definitely not a hoax.

[CMJ]

Thank God there are still some like Mean Green Texan that still understand that there was a divine Creator and there is meaning and purpose to our lives.

I do not understand how anyone can be atheistic but if you are...fine. But, to blasphemy God to those of us who do believe is inciteful. I can understand being agnostic because there is no one who knows about the creation of man for certain.

Man is inherently religious. Every civilization has realized that there is a power greater than themselves. Man did not create man. Neither did man evolve through random selection to any great extent. Math is a science. Test the Laws of Probability on man evolving from an amoeba/protozoa to the complex creature he is today. Furthermore, show me the remains of those bodies that failed to evolve perfectly.

Science is fantastic. It has helped us prolong life and make it easier. It is virtually infallible in testing life through the five senses but it does not cover everything. According to science, nothing else exists that can't be proven. So love, joy, hate, and happiness, to name a few do not exist according to science because they cannot be tested or measured. There are many things that exist in this world that we do not understand.

The vast majority of the people on earth believe in a higher power and have since time immemorial. If they did not feel that way religion would have died out centuries ago. If religion did not make us feel better about ourselves and our families and did not give us moral values it wouldn't exist. It has survived for thousands of years and it is definitely not a hoax.

Man is also becoming less and less religious all the time. The USA is much more religious than most other developed nations. Faith tends to be highest among people of lesser means and/or undereducated (I don't mean by that that wealthy people and college graduates are not into religion btw, but stats I have read seem to point to that generality). The reason people have been religious for thousands of years is because we didn't have science to explain things. Science still doesn't give us all the answers, but every generation we expand our knowledge by leaps and bounds. I saw some stat that said within a hundred years or so they expect less than half the USA to believe in God (something that is already close to being the case in Europe apparently).

Five hundred years ago, we believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Two hundred fifty years ago we didn't understand how electricity worked and thought lightning was the wrath of God. Barely a hundred years ago we had never flown. Fifty years ago we were on the path to the moon. The computers they used aboard the Lunar aircraft had a tiny fraction of the processing power that most people have in their cell phones.

There are more stars in the Milky Way Galaxy than grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world. And there are more galaxies than there are stars in the Milky Way. About a hundred years ago we thought the Milky Way WAS the universe. Plate tectonics explains what people used to think was God's judgement (aka earthquakes).

To deny evolution is to deny all of biology. My girlfriend (a Caltech grad btw, though in environmental science) literally says if you don't believe in the evolution of species, you don't believe in science at all. Her words, not mine.

Now as I said in a previous post, the fact that science hasn't (can't?) explain what was there before the Big Bang or what caused that literal creation of all things, does sorta leave open a door (to me anyway) of some sort of divine push to get the ball rolling. But the eventual end of this universe in what.....thousands of trillions of years from now (I think I read it'll take that long for star creation to stop...and then four or five times as long after that for everything to wink out including black stars when they have nothing more to suck up) is sorta anti-God too right? Like nothing in the universe is eternal, not even the universe itself. Of course, if one believes the multiverse or accordion theory then there never will be an end to things I suppose.

[GrayEagle]

Man is also becoming less and less religious all the time. The USA is much more religious than most other developed nations. Faith tends to be highest among people of lesser means and/or undereducated (I don't mean by that that wealthy people and college graduates are not into religion btw, but stats I have read seem to point to that generality). The reason people have been religious for thousands of years is because we didn't have science to explain things. Science still doesn't give us all the answers, but every generation we expand our knowledge by leaps and bounds. I saw some stat that said within a hundred years or so they expect less than half the USA to believe in God (something that is already close to being the case in Europe apparently).

Five hundred years ago, we believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Two hundred fifty years ago we didn't understand how electricity worked and thought lightning was the wrath of God. Barely a hundred years ago we had never flown. Fifty years ago we were on the path to the moon. The computers they used aboard the Lunar aircraft had a tiny fraction of the processing power that most people have in their cell phones.

There are more stars in the Milky Way Galaxy than grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world. And there are more galaxies than there are stars in the Milky Way. About a hundred years ago we thought the Milky Way WAS the universe. Plate tectonics explains what people used to think was God's judgement (aka earthquakes).

To deny evolution is to deny all of biology. My girlfriend (a Caltech grad btw, though in environmental science) literally says if you don't believe in the evolution of species, you don't believe in science at all. Her words, not mine.

Now as I said in a previous post, the fact that science hasn't (can't?) explain what was there before the Big Bang or what caused that literal creation of all things, does sorta leave open a door (to me anyway) of some sort of divine push to get the ball rolling. But the eventual end of this universe in what.....thousands of trillions of years from now (I think I read it'll take that long for star creation to stop...and then four or five times as long after that for everything to wink out including black stars when they have nothing more to suck up) is sorta anti-God too right? Like nothing in the universe is eternal, not even the universe itself. Of course, if one believes the multiverse or accordion theory then there never will be an end to things I suppose.

I'm probably not well-versed enough to speak to every aspect that you mentioned but let me comment on a few.

You said that five hundred years ago the earth was considered the center of the universe. The only Bible references that can be construed to that is not in the book of Genesis. There were a couple of references, one in Joshua and one in Psalms that might lead you to believe that but they are written from man's perspective and not cosmology. Genesis had stated that the world was round and suspended in space when people thought that the world was flat. In fact, astronomers might be thought to be geocentrists because they mark the location and movement of the planets based on their position from the earth.

No offense to your girl friend but not believing in evolution is not believing in science is bunk. Only a little more than half of the biological scientists say that they believe in evolution and that number is decreasing even in the face of being denied research funds. In fact, that is purportedly the major reason that scientists won't deny evolution because it would cut them out of research money. (Research funds are the backbone to discoveries, especially in medicine, so they remain essential). There are elements of microevolution in Darwin's theory that are sound but none of that substantiates how man evolved from a simple form to the complexity of the human body.

Lastly, the Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory. Can anyone show scientific proof of the Big Bang? I haven't seen it yet but I'll keep looking.

[adman]

Science is fantastic. It has helped us prolong life and make it easier. It is virtually infallible in testing life through the five senses but it does not cover everything. According to science, nothing else exists that can't be proven. So love, joy, hate, and happiness, to name a few do not exist according to science because they cannot be tested or measured. There are many things that exist in this world that we do not understand.

Um, science has proven the existence of love - here's a bit about it: http://digitaljournal.com/article/264520

[CMJ]

Lastly, the Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory. Can anyone show scientific proof of the Big Bang? I haven't seen it yet but I'll keep looking.

The continual expansion of the universe and white noise definitely support the idea.

[DoubleEagle]

No offense to your girl friend but not believing in evolution is not believing in science is bunk. Only a little more than half of the biological scientists say that they believe in evolution and that number is decreasing even in the face of being denied research funds. In fact, that is purportedly the major reason that scientists won't deny evolution because it would cut them out of research money. (Research funds are the backbone to discoveries, especially in medicine, so they remain essential). There are elements of microevolution in Darwin's theory that are sound but none of that substantiates how man evolved from a simple form to the complexity of the human body.

I would be interested in seeing the source for your first claim (% of biological scientists who believe in evolution). While it is true that roughly half of Americans reject evolution, the theory is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. In 2007 the Discovery Institute, founded to promote the teaching of intelligent design, was only able to identify 700 scientists out of over 480,000 U.S. based earth and life scientists that gave credence to creation science:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2732

Also, in 2006 the International Council for Science, an umbrella group for 120 national scientific bodies, released a statement regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution:

http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/teaching-of-evolution-june-2006

[Mean Green 93-98]

I would be interested in seeing the source for your first claim (% of biological scientists who believe in evolution). While it is true that roughly half of Americans reject evolution, the theory is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. In 2007 the Discovery Institute, founded to promote the teaching of intelligent design, was only able to identify 700 scientists out of over 480,000 U.S. based earth and life scientists that gave credence to creation science:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2732

Also, in 2006 the International Council for Science, an umbrella group for 120 national scientific bodies, released a statement regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution:

http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/teaching-of-evolution-june-2006

I don't think it's possible to find an accurate count/percentage of scientists who personally reject evolution. Since such a rejection immediately brings the wrath of the orthodox "scientific" hierarchy upon them to seriously threaten their careers, most of them probably keep such thoughts to themselves.

[All About UNT]

I would be interested in seeing the source for your first claim (% of biological scientists who believe in evolution). While it is true that roughly half of Americans reject evolution, the theory is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. In 2007 the Discovery Institute, founded to promote the teaching of intelligent design, was only able to identify 700 scientists out of over 480,000 U.S. based earth and life scientists that gave credence to creation science:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2732

Also, in 2006 the International Council for Science, an umbrella group for 120 national scientific bodies, released a statement regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution:

http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/teaching-of-evolution-june-2006

you won't find those stats you requested on any credible website or poll... I think you know that.

[GrayEagle]

ww.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

The above is what I remembered but the numbers refer to all people not bioscientists. There have been other former teachers of evolution that have written that the scientific community is slowly changing and is much higher than the 700 original dissenters of some thirty years ago.

Evolution is not a scientific fact and can never be. In order to become scientific fact theories must be reproducable and testable and evolution can do neither.

Intelligent design has not been proven either but common sense and the mathematical laws of probability tell me that it's a more reasonable hypothesis than evolution. I will admit, however, that there could be elements of microevolution between the original man and modern man.

[FirefightnRick]

If the simple fact that CMJ finally has a girlfriend isn't proof enough that there is a God, then I don't know what else to tell you?

ATTENTION 66!!!!!....This is what folks call SARCASM, and is an attempt to lightly tease CMJ with no hateful intent whatsoever.

Rick

Edited January 27, 2013 by FirefightnRick