Evidence for God from Science

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists.

Just saw this and thought of him...he said most dissenters aren't biologists.

Just saw this and thought of him...he said most dissenters aren't biologists

.

Actually, if you want to quote me in some way that's actually accurate, I believe I was more specific than that, stating that they aren't in fields such as ecology and evolution; that would truly be impressive. However, they are typically in fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, etc. and have little familiarity with observations from outside the lab!

If all else fails, lie...great strategy thereal.

I'm not saying they're not scientists...I'm just referencing the fact that you never see anyone from the natural sciences taking an ID stance on the issue.

This relates to my earlier observation that the small fraction of the scientific community that has problems with evolution is made up largely by those in Physics, Astronomy, Genetics, etc.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... y&start=15

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:If all else fails, lie...great strategy thereal.

I'm not saying they're not scientists...I'm just referencing the fact that you never see anyone from the natural sciences taking an ID stance on the issue.

This relates to my earlier observation that the small fraction of the scientific community that has problems with evolution is made up largely by those in Physics, Astronomy, Genetics, etc.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... y&start=15

Wait a minute, thereal did specify, evolution, ecology, natural sciences etc.

How is he lying?

Plus many of the scientist who signed this paper don't necessarily support ID. They just have questions about evolution.

Who is doing the misrepresenting here?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:The list of 514 signatories includes 154 biologists ... he said most dissenters aren't biologists.

Even ignoring the other comments, simple arithmetic shows: 154/514 ~ 30%. Most means more than 50%. About 70% dissenters aren't biologists.
Other factors to consider:
There are ~ twice as many biologists as chemists or physicists on this list but what if overall there are 10 times as many biologists as chemists and 50 times as many biologists as physicists?
What percentage of biologists overall is this 154?

Why is it I'm blasted no matter what I say? I said thereal was wrong when he said there aren't biologists who doubt evolution. I proved him wrong. What is it with you people? Can't you keep ONE thing in context? And then why do you bring up ID? This has nothing to do with ID. Just blowing off steam? Take everything kmart says, and go off on all tangents possible.

And you are all masters of the non-sequitor. You are unable to make a coherent statement at every turn. So biologists don't make up the majority of dissenters. Does that mean anything? No. Because I never said they did.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Why is it I'm blasted no matter what I say? I said thereal was wrong when he said there aren't biologists who doubt evolution. I proved him wrong. What is it with you people? Can't you keep ONE thing in context? And then why do you bring up ID? This has nothing to do with ID. Just blowing off steam? Take everything kmart says, and go off on all tangents possible.

And you are all masters of the non-sequitor. You are unable to make a coherent statement at every turn. So biologists don't make up the majority of dissenters. Does that mean anything? No. Because I never said they did.

Ok sorry about the ID thing I realize that you didn't bring it up.
directly...

I'm just referencing the fact that you never see anyone from the natural sciences taking an ID stance on the issue.

Hey your not the only one being blasted, we've blasted many others together on this board you and I.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Why is it I'm blasted no matter what I say?

Perhaps because the words you type don't communicate your meaning very well?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I said thereal was wrong when he said there aren't biologists who doubt evolution.

No, that is not what you wrote. Go back and read your post at the top of the thread:

AttentionKMartShoppers, earlier wrote:he said most dissenters aren't biologists.

Your two statements above aren't equivalent.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So biologists don't make up the majority of dissenters. Does that mean anything? No. Because I never said they did.

1) Kmart opens with "thereal says most dissenters aren't biologists"
2) Kmart shows data illustrating most dissenters aren't biologists
3) Kmart goes yeah, in your face, i'm right, so quit picking on me just because you're jealous of my huge brain and unique reasoning abilities
4) sandy_mcd goes wow, now i recall why i haven't responded to a Kmart post in awhile

sandy_mcd wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Why is it I'm blasted no matter what I say?

Perhaps because the words you type don't communicate your meaning very well?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I said thereal was wrong when he said there aren't biologists who doubt evolution.

No, that is not what you wrote. Go back and read your post at the top of the thread:

AttentionKMartShoppers, earlier wrote:he said most dissenters aren't biologists.

Your two statements above aren't equivalent.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So biologists don't make up the majority of dissenters. Does that mean anything? No. Because I never said they did.

1) Kmart opens with "thereal says most dissenters aren't biologists"
2) Kmart shows data illustrating most dissenters aren't biologists
3) Kmart goes yeah, in your face, i'm right, so quit picking on me just because you're jealous of my huge brain and unique reasoning abilities
4) sandy_mcd goes wow, now i recall why i haven't responded to a Kmart post in awhile

What is it Kmart says?

Oh yes, it was.

pwned

lol
KMart you know I love you.

1) Kmart opens with "thereal says most dissenters aren't biologists"
2) Kmart shows data illustrating most dissenters aren't biologists

Yes, those pesky adverbs.

You know I'm capable of doing simple percent problems...you know that's not what I meant. So, yes, I did goof up with my wording. I mean, didn't you read my quotations of thereal? You know I have the English competence of a Mexican illegal.

Back to the original quote from the site:

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists.

Of course, we all know that Darwinism is the majority opinion of the scientific community. Secondly, I doubt this represents a true reflection of the opinions of the scientific community.

BUT, since we like basic arithmetic

30% ~ Biologists
15% ~ Chemists
12% ~ Physicists

Now, I wonder if you were to look at the dissenting community as a whole, if the numbers would play out in a similar fashion? 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.

Hmm . . .

Which is the point of my post. *YEAH* There we go.

Jac3510 wrote:Back to the original quote from the site:

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists.

Of course, we all know that Darwinism is the majority opinion of the scientific community. Secondly, I doubt this represents a true reflection of the opinions of the scientific community.

BUT, since we like basic arithmetic

30% ~ Biologists
15% ~ Chemists
12% ~ Physicists

Now, I wonder if you were to look at the dissenting community as a whole, if the numbers would play out in a similar fashion? 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.

Hmm . . .

No he stated clearly

This relates to my earlier observation that the small fraction of the scientific community that has problems with evolution is made up largely by those in Physics, Astronomy, Genetics, etc.

And he is correct in this regard as 70% of the dissenters came from other fields.

Do we have figures on the percentage of those in the field of biology who are in the field of genetics or biochemistry?

Hmm . . . just for reference, a couple of interesting links I've come across:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/hayward2.htm

Neither of these are anything like proof of anything, but simply interesting reads, IMO.

BGood:

I wasn't commenting on thereal's point. To pick up on a idea from KMart, you should REALLY learn to follow the context of an argument. If you want my take on it, I think TR good slapped pretty well by this post, so he can backtrack all he wants, and you and sandy can feel free to defend him. The point is that there ARE those who dissent from neo-Darwinism, and many of those are biologists. In fact, of those who dissent, you are at least two times more likely to be a biologist than from any other specific field.

I believe that was KMart's main point. Now, because I don't know how to make this any plainer, please note AGAIN, for about the eighth time, that I'm talking about a comparison of those who dissent, not dissenters against the scientific community as a whole.

Anyway, I would hope no one would use this as an argument either for or against evolution anyway. On both sides it's nothing more than an ad populum]. There was, at one time, a publication entitled something to the effect of "100 Scientists Against Einstein," to which he wisely responded "Why one hundred? One would be enough!" (paraphrased, of course). The point then, and now, is that we have to look at the arguments of these men rather than the numbers themselves. What I do appreciate about KMart's link is that it does a few things:

1) It puts an end to any notion that "all scientists" accept neo-Darwinism,
2) It shows the silly reasoning skills of evolutionists who feel the need, or logical consistency, of putting forward such a terrible argument,
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.

edit:

KMart wrote:Which is the point of my post. *YEAH* There we go.

Haha, I thought so. Thanks for the link. I had forgotten about this. I have to say, I was surprised that the number had climbed so high so quickly!

Jac3510 wrote: BGood:

I wasn't commenting on thereal's point. To pick up on a idea from KMart, you should REALLY learn to follow the context of an argument. If you want my take on it, I think TR good slapped pretty well by this post, so he can backtrack all he wants, and you and sandy can feel free to defend him. The point is that there ARE those who dissent from neo-Darwinism, and many of those are biologists. In fact, of those who dissent, you are at least two times more likely to be a biologist than from any other specific field.

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?

Jac3510 wrote:The point is that there ARE those who dissent from neo-Darwinism, and many of those are biologists.

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.