How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Hi, bernerbits, and welcome to EvCIn the post from RAZD just above (No. 252) there's a link to a thread about speech.It'll be interesting to have someone who's studied linguistics around, as it's one of the many disciplines that young earth creationism cuts directly across.Not your fault for being off topic. IamJoseph had dragged the thread onto his favourite subject. He wants to believe that speech was gifted to us by God around the time that written language first appeared.

And i quote... "I'd like to point out that their rejection of ToE also undermines the many many scientific progress over the decades that have saved and fed millions and millions of lives. These same idiots who believe in ToE also created anti-biotics, genetic engineering, and the myriad of other things that define a modern and developed society."I fail to see how evolution has anything to do with feeding the masses and coming up with vaccines. If you are implying that all the scientists who come up with these things are evolutionsts than you are either ignorant...or i didn't get some kind of joke...Taz... you have to make sure that you don't start thinking that science is based off of evolution, because it ain't.

True, not all biologists are evolutionists. Let's say 99.9%. Taz's point is, therefore, that these people who achieve these splendid things in biology are unlikely to be dunces at biology, and can probably assess the theory of evolution even better than you can. Perhaps this is because you are not 72 Nobel Prize winning American scientists. Let's hear from some people who are, shall we?"Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."--- Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang. Well, of course not all science is based on evolution.However, all our knowledge of evolution is based on science, and is upheld by the people who know the science best, which I believe was Taz's point.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hello AF, and welcome.I trust you've read the OP?If so, I'd like to read your perspective on the second part:

Antioch's Fire Well there is a definite joke rattling around in there,however, in all seriousness I would like to ask you the following question so that we may be clear on things right off the start.Can you state within a short paragraph or two just what defines evolution?

---

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."Albert Einstein

First, you say that 99.9 percent of all biologists believe in evolution.1) Where did you get that number? I really think you would be surprised at the number of accredited scientists who do not believe in the theory of evolution.2) Bringing up a long list of names simply shows that a lot of people agree with you. By no means does that make it correct. I firmly believe that the rule is not set by the majority and a majority cannot make something correct.3) You implied that some science is based off the theory of evolution. This science ceases to be science when it becomes based off a theory. That is just one of the problems that I find with evolution; parts of the evolutionary theory are 'proven' with other parts of the theory. It cannot be science if it is based off of a theory; especially one with so many unanswered questions.

So investigations into gravity stop being science when they're working off the theorey of general relativity?

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

A few years ago, creationists announced a list of scientists who questioned evolution. Agreeing with you that providing a list of people supporting a view doesn't make that view correct, and seeing such a list as wholly ridiculous anyway, the National Center for Science Education announced a parody of the creationist list called Project Steve that is a list of scientists named Steve (in recognition of the then recently deceased Stephen Jay Gould) who support evolution. The lists have continued to accumulate names through the years, and the lists are about equal in length. Since about 1% of the population have names that are a variation of Steve, this means that scientists who question evolution represent about 1% of scientists.While I don't have any figures right at hand, support for evolution is even broader within biology than within other fields, and so the 99.9% figure is believable.I'd provide a link to the creationist list, but the Discovery Institute's website appears to be down right now, so I can't find the list right now. This is most certainly true, and I doubt you'll find any disagreement with this here. But within science a consensus forms because scientists are all studying the same real world, and scientists become convinced that we have uncovered something probably true about the real world when they're able to replicate the results of experiments performed by other scientists who are also studying the real world. A scientific consensus forms when enough scientists become convinced that something probably true about the real world has been uncovered.In other words, scientists don't accept something as probably true because there's a consensus. Rather, the consensus forms because something is probably true, and the way scientists uncover what is probably true is through the scientific method. Science is not based upon the theory of evolution. Rather, the TOE is a scientific theory, meaning that it was developed through widely replicated research, has made many successful predictions, and is falsifiable.Theories are formulated by generalizing from the evidence, a thought process called induction. Predictions are then made by making deductions from the theory. Successful predictions are the bread and butter of a successful theory.--Percy

And I think I would not.Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism."99.9% do not agree with you. And yet you wanted to pretend that scientists don't believe in evolution. I provided my appeal to actual authorities in response to your appeal to imaginary authorities. That may be the craziest thing that anyone has ever said on these forums.If science cannot be based on scientific theories, on what can it be based?

And this brings us back to the topic in the OP.It's not just a "list of names", it's a list of America's top scientists.72 Nobel Prize winning American scientists think that you're wrong about science.You think that they're wrong about science.Who should I bet on?

I'll take the scientists

we plugged through part of this list once. they're counting people with bachelors degrees who homeschool their children, and people with degrees in other genres that do not pertain to life or earth sciences (such as dembski). i think you'll find that the actual biologist and geologist and paleontologist content of that list is much smaller than they represent.

---

In the abstract I have no problem with this statement. However, the topic of this thread is why do biologists believe in the theory of evolution. Can you think of any reason why the vast majority of scientists who work in a field would believe in the validity of any theory if that theory were as easily dismissed as creationists like to say that the ToE is?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Withdrawn inappropriate messageEdited by LucyTheApe, : Withdrawn

Could you give us an estimate on what percentage of evolutionary biologists you think have done that? (for example, mine would be <0.001%, and probably none).I should guess that the percentage of Christian priests/ministers who've fucked a choirboy is probably higher, but that doesn't mean it's typical behaviour.