Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Not to be annoying or anything but I thought the point of this thread was as follows.
"Just saw this and thought of him[thereal]...he said most dissenters aren't biologists."

And in your last post
"I had been under the impression that thereal had suggested, that evolution was so firmly entrenched in biology that the only real dissenters came from other fields."

Also to mention to fact that the thread is entitled "Just How Wrong thereal was:"

So isn't the context of the argument that the real stated most dissenters aren't biologists? And KMart calling him out on it?
So who is backtracking?

The general context of the thread related to TR's claim that there are little to no dissenters among biologists, and that those who do dissent are made up, primarily, of those in other fields. However, if you follow the thread, you'll see that the discussion quickly revolved around whether or not TR made just such a claim.

As that relates to my post, I openend by saying, "Back to the original quote" . . . Notice especially the words "back to." The implication is that I am avoiding the particular discussion related to TR's actual claim and moving, instead, to a discussion on the implications of the quotation. In fact, you will see that I never mentioned TR until the very end of the thread, in which I said, in passing, that I was under the same impression that he had put forward generally.

BGood wrote:Just staying within the context of the argument.

This thread was a personal challenge to thereal it seemed not a thread about the fact that dissenters exist.

Never the less I agree with your analysis, there should and always will be dissenters. Science is not a collection of facts, it is a collection of observations.

And, as noted above, if you trace my argument, you'll see that I took no issue either for or against this. My point related to the actual statistical data and its implications on science as a whole, whether or not this did or did not measure up with thereal's alleged comments.

Again, then, I find it interesting that, among those who dissent from Darwinism, biologists outnumber any other single field at least 2:1. My question, for which there is no answer right now, is whether or not that is representative of the dissenting community as a whole or not.

From a secondary perspective, yet again, if we want to tie this back into the argument related to TR, I still say that he got got

ok, I got it.

Thanks for being so patient with me.

Sorry if I have been irritating lately.

Jac3510 wrote:Obviously, 30% of all biologists don't doubt Darwinism. But, if you were to take the 100% of those that do doubt, I wonder if roughly 30% would be biologists. It is of some interest to me that, of those who dissent, biologists represent the single largest category. I had been under the impression that thereal had suggested, that evolution was so firmly entrenched in biology that the only real dissenters came from other fields.

The fact that biologists represent the single largest category is meaningless in and of itself. Actually, you want to look at the dissenting biologists as a percentage of all biologists and compare to dissenting others as a percentage of their fields. As I suggested earlier, biologists seem to be the most numerous type of PhD scientists.

From this graph (compare biologist line to physical sciences line) you can see that the % of dissenting PhD biologists is about the same as in other fields. I too thought it should be substantially lower. [Actually in his post, thereal limits it to certain fields in biology.]

Jac3510 wrote:In fact, of those who dissent, you are at least two times more likely to be a biologist than from any other specific field.
3) It demonstrates either (a) the increasing tendency toward dissent or at least (b) the popular awareness of such dissent--possibly both. When this document was first released, there were 100 signatories. Now there are 500. That should say something in general.

[DDBS: Do you realize that ~40% of sick days are taken on a Monday or a Friday?]Let's compare lists a bit. On Kmart's list I count (may have missed one or two) 5 Steves(or similar). Of these only 1 is listed as a biologist and he is a "medical-veterinary entomologist". Here is a list of over 700 PhD Steves in favor of evolution, a higher percentage in biology and a list which started later than Kmarts. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp So less than 1% have doubts; that is about as close to unanimous as you can ask of people. And I suspect dissenters are more likely to sign a list than assenters.

The fact that biologists represent the single largest category is meaningless in and of itself. Actually, you want to look at the dissenting biologists as a percentage of all biologists and compare to dissenting others as a percentage of their fields. As I suggested earlier, biologists seem to be the most numerous type of PhD scientists.

You're missing the point. And appealing to the majority.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The fact that biologists represent the single largest category is meaningless in and of itself. Actually, you want to look at the dissenting biologists as a percentage of all biologists and compare to dissenting others as a percentage of their fields. As I suggested earlier, biologists seem to be the most numerous type of PhD scientists.

You're missing the point. And appealing to the majority.

What's the point?

If you don't mind me asking.

*sigh* This is not that hard people . . .

The fact that biologists represent the single largest category is meaningless in and of itself. Actually, you want to look at the dissenting biologists as a percentage of all biologists and compare to dissenting others as a percentage of their fields. As I suggested earlier, biologists seem to be the most numerous type of PhD scientists.

It is wrong to say that either has to be considered to the exclusion of the other. ACTUALLY, what you are interested in is more like the following: if you have ten times more biologists than physicists in the scientific community, do you, in fact, have ten times more of the former than the latter in the dissenting world? If not, how do we explain the discrepancies?

I think that everyone will agree that biologists are more likely -- far more likely -- to be Darwinian than those who study in other fields. But that's not the point. The point is that one third of the the dissenting community (assuming for the sake of argument that this 500 person list is representative of the whole) is made up of biologists. Now, do biologists make up 30% of the scientific community? I don't know, but if so, then we have the simple proportion expected. If not, is it more or less? If more, then you are, as a biologist, LESS likely to dissent. If less, then as a biologist, then you are MORE likely to dissent.

Now, we go back to the original statement, which is that within the dissenting community itself, you are at least two times more likely to be a biologist than any other given field. That is an indisputable fact.

Once again, Sandy, no one is arguing that all or even most biologists are dissenters. That would be silly. However, it is equally silly (or at least, uninformed) to argue that the dissenting community is made up of non-biologists. The truth seems to be that the expected proportion of biologists ARE dissenting.

Now, why the fuss? Because of the propaganda, which is exactly what this is all about. If biologists don't dissent, then everyone who does simply don't know what they are talking about. Sorry, that doesn't work. You'll of course have to defend two things here. First, you'll have to deny the above statement, and second, you'll have to defend the dissent ratios anyway. Why? propaganda.

For fun, though, even if we DID follow your line of thought, we still get your own admission: "From this graph (compare biologist line to physical sciences line) you can see that the % of dissenting PhD biologists is about the same as in other fields. I too thought it should be substantially lower." I expect, sadly for your side, sandy, that the number will continue to climb.

God bless

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The fact that biologists represent the single largest category is meaningless in and of itself. Actually, you want to look at the dissenting biologists as a percentage of all biologists and compare to dissenting others as a percentage of their fields. As I suggested earlier, biologists seem to be the most numerous type of PhD scientists.

You're missing the point. And appealing to the majority.

What's the point?

If you don't mind me asking.

Uh boy... The point was that there are people in biology who have problems with evolution-something thereal said was basically non-existent.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The fact that biologists represent the single largest category is meaningless in and of itself. Actually, you want to look at the dissenting biologists as a percentage of all biologists and compare to dissenting others as a percentage of their fields. As I suggested earlier, biologists seem to be the most numerous type of PhD scientists.

You're missing the point. And appealing to the majority.

What's the point?

If you don't mind me asking.

Uh boy... The point was that there are people in biology who have problems with evolution-something thereal said was basically non-existent.

Are you sure??
Can you post relevant quotes?

And How many of the biologists who signed are geneticists and biochemists?

I think the point is some people don't know when to drop it.

Including me.