Some actual journalism being practiced here on the “intelligent design” issue.
Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.
The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition’s sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.
This kind of list is so ridiculous, that the National Center Science for Scientific Education has compiled a list of its own called “Project Steve,” which is a list of scientists names Steve who support evolution.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
As PZ Myers observes,
The title of the survey being circulated is “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”: This is a point which has niggled at the back of my brain every time this issue has come up lately, with the frequent reference by creationists to the entire body of knowledge concerning evolution in all biological systems as “Darwinism”. It makes it sound as if the conceptions of how evolution works in different systems has not changed since Darwin’s day, perhaps in a subtle attempt to make biological science sound like theology, with an unchanging holy writ that must be accepted as literally correct in every way. As PZ observes,
The survey doesn’t even mention its own pet project, intelligent design creationism. The statement being signed in support of is,
All scientists should be skeptical at all times. Under the correct definition of skepticism, I’d be willing to sign that statement. If you want a more definitive statement, I prefer the survey being circulated by Project Steve.
classic tactic for pseudo-science. The engineers and particularly physicist who don’t understand life-sciences sign on to these things to give it some academic heft. Used to happen with the “paranormal” and esp stuff all the time…..
They were specific about ‘20′, somewhat specific about ‘more than a dozen’, but when it came to enumerating evangelicals, the best they could do was “suggest that many are evangelical Christians”. Gee, where did the science, the precise math and analysis go?
Dugger,
Going in to the bottom of the ninth, in a big upset, its the Jesus Freaks 10 and the NY Times 0.
Since the religious beliefs of the signers of the anti-evo petition are considered important in forming their scientific beliefs re evolution, shouldn’t the signers of the “Project Steve” have their religious or pseudo-religious beliefs examined? After all, Gould was an atheist and a Marxist.
Whoa!!!
Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill to Stop UAE Port Deal
*Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
stick, keep in mind that an expert out of his field is just another amateur - or would you let your mechanic give you a heart bypass operation?
stick, the religious beliefs of the ID supporters is only relevant so far as it points out that people with a poor grasp of science, or who believe that scientific fact is somehow debatable, are more likely than not to be evangelicals.
In any case, science is based on fact and repeatable experimentation. Not polling. Project Steve, as it clearly states on its Web site, deliberately mocks the idea that polls in any way indicate scientific truth:
“We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!”
Beerwulf-
If “an expert out of his field is just another amateur” then why does what Oliver have to say on the subject have any meaning at all?
It has as much meaning as anything we’d say as individuals. My own opinion is that creationists and ID supporters are hoping against hope that if they just find a few facts and arrange them correctly, then make enough noise and hold their breath long enough they won’t have to deal with truths outside their comfort zones.
The thing that bothers me the most about this whole ID crowd is the same thing that bothers me about the Bush administration - they have such a strong need to believe that they can see things that aren’t there and deny things that are. (I wound up getting married the first time doing that very thing, so I have room to talk here.)
When they’re blowing off about evolution and “intelligent design” it’s bad enough. But when those clowns are in charge of our foreign policy, we wind up with Islamist theocracies in charge in Iraq, and Iran giving us the finger to develop nuclear weapons while threatening to cut off our oil if we interfere. And we are so overcommitted in Iraq that we don’t have the bandwidth to police Afghanistan and Pakistan, let alone fight Iran.
Berrwulf-
We’d probably agree on quite a lot. I’m not an ID’r or an evolutionist. I think that both sides of that question fit their beliefs about the past into an idelogical mold. Of the people in the US who accept that the majority scientific opinion on evolution is correct, how many have any understanding of the science that is involved? I don’t think it’s very large, even among the people with PhD’s in the humanities. Like Oliver, they accept the current pro-evolution point of view because if you believed in humanity as a being with an extrinsic purpose, well, then you would have to change your point of view on quite a lot of things.
I don’t understand your last paragraph. What in the heck does ID have to do with “our foreign policy”? Bush is a Methodist who has made no definitive statement on ID vs. evolution. Condi Rice is, I believe, a Catholic, and Roman Catholics are famously open to evolution as an explanation for biological man, if not spiritual man. Exactly which pro-ID person or persons do you think are in cahrge of American foreign policy?
Bush has said that he supports teaching ID.
stick - The neocons who had their grand vision of reshaping the politics of the Middle East but never considered that change can cut for you or against you are the biggest culprits in the admin, but you can also add the doofuses at Homeland Security/FEMA (Chertoff/Brown) to the pile.
And you’re right that not many people have a good idea of the science involved in why evolution is so much better than ID as an explanation of how life on earth came to be what it is. And the sad part is that it’s really not that complicated if it’s presented right - there are computer games (SimLIFE is especially good) that make it really, really clear what the principles are and how genetics work and so forth. But those aren’t the ones that are pushing ID so hard. The ones who are have made an emotional commitment to its (poorly) hidden organizing principle and won’t even hear you when you present actual facts and analysis. If you want a frustrating two hours, try explaining natural selection to an ID proponent who doesn’t understand random walks on a shifting energy surface.
Crazy — Abortion a Felony in South Dakota
Did you see this abortion thing in South Dakota