Morgan BellRichard Dawkins on atheism
November 18th 2008 22:28
Well, to be honest, I don't know what he's setting aside, but in this interview with the Guardian, he admits that his tactic might not have been the best one, that there is a different approach to convincing people.
"He pauses to reflect. "But I seem - I seem to have lost patience.""
He's taken a hard tack, and, actually, I find it hard to disagree with him, even though I find his methods somewhat disagreeable.
He brings up a point that definitely has some traction:
""We've all been brought up with the view that religion has some kind of special privileged status. You're not allowed to criticise it. And therefore, if you offer even a fairly mild criticism, it really does sound strident, because it violates this expectation that religion is out of bounds.""
Even in the scientific community, people will steer away from difficult topics, preferring to leave people their beliefs, and concentrate on their work. I've met a strange researcher who admitted that he believed that his experiments worked because he prayed to God.
That's fine, if that's what he believes, though I think it's ridiculous. The real problem becomes that, when he publishes a journal paper, he doesn't cite that as a cause. Is he lying? Does he really believe? Does he not believe in science?
| 133 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by the-sandwich-shak
what if...just what if, God and science actually prove the existence of the other? The more we discover with science the more we realise that there is an amazing force behind it that designed it, built it and nurtured it to survive.
Is it possible that God created science and all the mysteries that we are uncovering? And is it also possible that science is pointing to that fact the more we delve into it?
Comment by The Rusty Can
Everything
I've read The God Delusion and wasn't quite sure what it was about it that was off-putting until I read the Guardian interview - Dawkins does come across as intellectually superior when he writes. He did make a good argument for atheism though and he also brought up similar questions to the one you asked about the researcher.
Good post - thanks.
Rusty.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
No.
And is it also possible that science is pointing to that fact the more we delve into it?
No.
90% of the world's scientists are atheists.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Rusty, I find it difficult to understand scientists that are religious... after all, with the Christian understanding of God, he could, at any time, wildly change the results of your experiments, or totally invalidate your theories... that's discomforting.
Ruby, just saying 'No' to the possibility that God created the universe requires absolute belief. After all, you don't actually know that there's no godly figure - you just suspect there isn't based on what you've experienced, right?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Now, as unlikely as the possibility is, it may well be that there is a God but to suggest that science actually points to his existence is erroneous when in actual fact the opposite is true. the more science uncovers about our world and universe, the less the existence of a supreme deity becomes necessary.
Science does not need God.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Hawking DOES say it best...
Comment by the-sandwich-shak
That perhaps should read as God requires neither science or the universe to prove His existence.
If Hawking feels he has proved that there is no need for God...bully for him! However, if God is truth...and the possibility lives beyond science...then perhaps that 10% of scientists have discovered more than the 90%.
Truth doesn't depend on numbers.
Maybe Richard Dawkins has worked out that science is fighting on a completely different plane to faith..the way I see it is that science and God are complementary.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
How so? What leads you to this conclusion?
Comment by the-sandwich-shak
Elitist - I guess because you guys are discussing as though it were the absolute truth that God and science don't mix..I don't agree.
Naive - Because you are discussing only to the limits of the laws of science and nature...I see it as God is beyond those and was the one who established those laws. Being the very nature of God means you are beyond the physical limits of this small planet.
While science has explained so much over the years, I just see that as people having discovered HOW God has created the earth, not that He doesn't exist or isn't necessary.
Hope that makes sense, take care!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
No.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i once saw a YouTube that was a round-table with Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris . . . it was fascinating, they spent quite a bit of time discussing how difficult it is to broach the subject of religion without people taking offence
i found it really interesting (in the video you provided) that Dawkins said it was practically impossible to be an "out" Atheist in the USA and be an elected official . . . Theism really is very intwined in their culture, to the point where respect (or perhaps respectability) hinges on a belief in God
it reminds me of the movie Contact where Jodie Foster is dismissed as a candidate to meet aliens because she is an Atheist and therefore not suitable . . . the mob consider she is not a suitable representative (statistically) of the general god-fearing public
Comment by Damo
Does Richard Dawkins exist?
And if didn't would we invent him?
In order accept his version of the universe we have to accept questionable concepts like MEME's and Genetic Robots.
He is certainly a man on a crusade and I do remember reading a critique of him by a contemporary scientist that described him as no different in approach than those he attacks.
Where he deviates from objective science and presents rationalism as science when make declarations that cannot be tested. Lets put your god on the scales and if does not weigh anything then he must not exist. Interesting method if that is an effect way of measuring gods.
He is somewhat of a joke for some and a sky punching activist hero for others. It would be interesting to see him debate someone of the calibre of Hoyle.
Regardless of which the deeper questions he claims to have solved still remain open.
I will stop now incase his fan club get upset.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The God Delusion was written by Satan as a means of turning people away from God.
And Jesus is coming back to Earth next week.
Are YOU ready for The Rapture?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
rationalism is a valid part of science . . . scientists use rational thinking in conjunction with empirical evidence, thats how theories are formed, based on fact
there is no absolute certainty in science
also, i dont think Dawkins is "attacking" anyone, he is criticising a widely accepted theory by informing people that the facts dont support it
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
As he picked up some dirt, God said. "Use your own dirt."
Comment by Damo
Since when has subjective science existed?
Laughing too hard.
Have leave the room.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I'm not sure if your intention was to turn this post into a humorous one, but the comments are certainly worth a good laugh:
That's comforting. How is the scientfific quest for uncertainty progressing?
I might quote that one to the next person who uses the uncertainty of science to prove a point?
The biggest consolation is, I don't have to listen to Stephen Hawking anymore now that I know nothing he said is based upon absolute certainty. He's basing everything on the uncertain laws of science.
Again, it's the old rehasing of heresies. Nothing is right = nothing is wrong. Which begs the question, Why do people who believe nothing is objectively right bother arguing? Their reason for arguing falls apart on its own premise.
Non believer in objective truth: "I'm telling you there are no objective truths."
Believer in objective truths: "I don't agree, but in saying that, in your mind, I'm subjectively agreeing with you."
Non believer in objective truth: "You're not listening."
Believer in objective truth: "Listening doesn't necessarily exist."
Take a false premise to its logical conclusion? What do you get? Absurdity.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
The uncertainty in science is, in fact, absurd on many levels... Einstein was notoriously uncomfortable with the idea that there was such great randomness in quantum mechanics, and Richard Feynman once said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics".
Well, Feynman also said:
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
What do you base your random processes on; the ones you use to understand uncertainty? Certain absolutes or uncertainties?
If there are no absolutes whatsoever, what's the actual point? Isn't the whole exercise futile?
It suits some people on a philosophical level to deny objective truths or absolutes. But it's often these same people who argue for science. Fortunately most of them aren't scientists. They're bloggers.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I think you'll appreciate this... the random process I look at was known, for over a hundred years, as the "Drunkard's Walk"... that is, if a drunkard is standing at a lightpost, stumbling around, what is his position at a particular moment in time?
It turns out that the answer to that question has influenced science in many, many fields...!
To answer your question, if there are no absolutes, isn't it all futile?
Well, yes, if the aim is exact, unquestionable knowledge. I suppose the easy answer is that: we don't care, since we cannot know anything, truly. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us this, sadly.
But, on a macroscopic level, things can happen so repeatably that, for all intents and purposes, it's 'known' - or at least, holds up to theory.
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Lady Henrietta Muddling,
I think you misunderstand what Morgan Bell means, although she is also going a little too far (which I'll get to later)
Generally `science' doesn't work on absolutes, but rather theories in a kind of `what we know may not be all there is to know in this area but it works so far and until we figure out something better we can sue it' method. Part of this process is based on the `fact' that it is impossible to prove something from examples, no matter how many examples you have, but possible to disprove something with only one example. (Hypothesis: `Everyone loves ice-cream!' Can I make it a theory? Check examples: I do, and my mum does and my best friend does and etc.... looking good. `I don’t' says some guy- therefore the hypothesis is disproved. However if we broaden the terms of the theory `most people love ice-cream and if they don't there's some specific reason why not' we may be able to prove it enough to call it a theory, but it'd probably never become a `law' since that requires more stringent definition normally impossible within such a subjective topic as opinion about ice-cream).
Anyway, how it generally works is that if the set of examples we have work within our current theory that theory is deemed useful (called a law if we're satisfied that it will always apply- with this satisfaction requirement usually being based on applying a very strict definition to the subject matter the law applies to) and applied to various working tasks (calculations etc)... when new examples come to light- say via experimentation brought about by advances in technology created by application of our earlier theory- that no longer fit the theory, we then require a new theory. However sometimes, we cant think of a new theory that fits with all our new examples (such as in the areas of universal theory, quantum mechanics etc) but this doesn't stop the old theory (even though its been proven to be inexact and not broad enough to be ` law' and `absolutely true') still being applied to calculations and experiments within areas it still is usable it. I.e. we don’t need a complete quantum theory to use the law of gravity and our understanding of air pressure to calculate the level of lift from a wing we require when designing an aeroplane. The laws/theories as they stand are `good enough' for our requirements.
And that what it generally comes down to: requirements. Most of the time scientists, engineers, doctors don’t need `absolute truths' to do their job, just `close enough to true as we know right now'; and that's the whole thing with scientific/medical advancement; we keep discovering new things and improving/expanding upon our existing knowledge base.
So that's what Morgan was trying to say...
However her final statement is inexact, because there are some absolutes in science, those little things known in philosophy as `a priori' (no experience) which are (basically- I’m keeping things rough for simplicities sake) things that are facts because they are their own definition.
I.e. a triangle is a geometric shape with three sides and three angles. That's a fact, because that is what a triangle is, and it only really exists in theory or representation. If something doesn't fit that definition, it’s not a triangle so it’s impossible to say a triangle isn’t fact, because the only way to do so would be to refute its definition and as soon as you deviate from that definition... you're no longer talking about triangles. As far as `real world' (physical) science is concerned we only need something to basically fit the definition closely enough for us to treat it as a triangle.
(A non-math example: the married man's wife married the man. A fact, since marrying the man is what made the married man's wife his wife. If some woman didn’t marry this man he wouldn’t be a married man, and therefore isn't the person we're talking about. It doesn’t matter if all existence is a computer simulation or all in my head, or your head or an illusion generated by a demon, these words still refer to the concepts that they refer too, as soon as they don't then they are no longer examples of what we're talking about and have no baring on the factual nature of the original statement).
When separating the word `theory' from `law' the difference normally comes down to the strictness of the field of definition. The law of conservation of energy for example is so specific in the subject it refers to that it can be excepted as `true' because there is to little wiggle room for any examples to be created to disprove it.
So there you go; science comes alive! And that’s what Hawking means when he says `science doesn’t require God’, in fact God (as a definition) gets in the way of that drive to continually expand upon your theories and test new areas and isn’t a `useful’ answer (I.E it can not be applied to any working knowledge and used in practice) in terms of explaining a `why is it so?’ question. The answers `because God made it like that’ or `because God does it’ doesn’t help you design a new drug, or build a power plant.
Hypothesis: that such a high percentage of scientists are atheists is because the kinds of people who become scientists are already attracted to the scientific method of thinking; a `usable information’ and `results’ based motivation and approach to thought (in which `God’ as an answer is unsatisfactory). This is as opposed to the alternative theory implied in other posts here `that practicing science leads one to a conclusion of God’s non-existence’. I would refute this idea on the grounds that God’s definition is so big it is impossible to disprove within our current scientific knowledge base. It’s a `chicken and the egg’ thing; I postulate that atheists become scientists, not that scientists become atheists.
I, by the way, am an agnostic.
Earl.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Perhaps it was a drunkard who fell in the forest and not a tree after all. I mean who would know? Certainly not a scientist. Unless of course he fell over repeatedly and made repeated non-sounds. But then, no-one would be there to determine this. We'd have to leave it to the scientists to hypothesise about, I guess.
Earl,
???
Generally `science' doesn't work on absolutes, ... Part of this process is based on the `fact' ...
So a fact is a non-absolute is it? So it's really a non-fact? Or just generally a fact, but not specifically a fact? Or something scientists need some more funding for?
Btw. I'ts nice of you to go into bat for Morgan. Your ability to know what another person is saying is, scientifically speaking, edifying without being absolute. Generally.
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Lady Henrietta Muddling, firstly the koan `if a tree falls in the forest and no body is there to hear it, does it make a sound' has been considered mute by many Zen Bhuddists because it has been misused (a koan is supposed to be an unanswerable question used to clear the mind, rather than bog one down with scientific theory or western epistemology) and because it has largely been answered. I.e. yes it does. Because since the original writing of the koan `sound' has been proven- within usable scientific theory- to be a physical thing that is perceived and not an intangible unknown as it was originally supposed. (If we assume to world exists at all outside the senses- which of course Bhuddists don't- rather believing the entire `real world' to be an illusion one must endeavour to free one's mind from) If that seams contradictory, well that's what you get for taking a religious device you have little knowledge of outside of CONTEXT.
As to fact as a non-absolute...
Do you not know what either word means? They're related terms, certainly, but not exact synonyms. Or are you one of those folks that like to simplify things to the point of losing all subtlety of meaning and communication and go about using words like terrible, horrible, awful etc as if they all just mean `really bad'? Did you read what I posted in its entirety or just skim through to find an individual phrase you could try to make a joke over? (Whoa, there's that context thing again).
I'll let you in on a little secret to how I knew what Morgan was saying...
I read what she wrote.
Amazing!
It's a new fangled scientific invention called `written communication'. You might consider trying it sometime.
Ok, I admit I inferred a little more detail in the interest of clarifying what I saw as the meaning that you obviously missed (having also read your comment; although now I realise- thanks to the CONTEXT of further posts of yours- that you probably didn't even try and understand what she meant, but were rather more interested in what, being disagreeable for its own sake? Seeking attention? Taking up space? Amusing yourself?) and its possible that I too misinterpreted her intention, after all written communication is an in-exact science (!) but that too is part of the point; something doesn't have to be 100% absolute certified `true' for it to be useful and usable.
While one cannot guarantee to be perfectly understood when trying to communicate, that's no reason to stop trying completely. If you’re genuinely trying to communicate clearly, rather than just being a nuisance, I apologise and suggest you attend some remedial adult learning classes.
Comment by Damo
But does anyone here actual know any scientists?
Have they actually worked with scientists?
Or is this just based upon conjecture?
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
usually the only time the term "objective science" is thrown around is in the USA by anti-evolution lobby groups who want Intelligent Design to be taught in the classroom alongside evolution . . . it really has no other meaning outside of the Creationism debate
when discussing science you should use the scientific definition of "fact"
thanks Earl for expanding on what i was trying to explain, i also found your examples of exceptions to the rule very interesting
you make an excellent point!
but generally with things like the physical properties of materials and behavioural traits of organisms etc, it is accepted that there still may be some minute margin of error
when scientists say "fact" they mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." (as opposed to "absolute certainty")
when scientists say "theory" they mean "a hypothetical structure of ideas that explains and interprets the facts" (as opposed to "random guess")
im sure Ruby has heard me say this many times before but ill just repeat myself on how facts and theories are defined in the scientific world:
biologists maintain that "evolution" is a fact and "natural selection" is a viable scientific theory to explain the mechanism of evolution . . . there are several theories of the "mechanism" of evolution and biologists readily admit they can not be certain about the exact mechanism
biological evolution (the fact) can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming
quotes from Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Next on the agenda: grammar and spelling.
Damo you go first.
Comment by Damo
Again what is subjective science?
And they bring up an irrelevant red herring if you claim to be scientific?
Having failed at changing the rules on a blog site they seek to change the rules of science. The protectors of science do not know their cornerstone is dependent upon objectivity.
Quaint.
No need to discuss further.
I have the answer that satisfies me.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Because in the real world one of my favourite hobbies is listening to people take an hour to explain something that a person with a grasp on what simplicity was would take ten seconds to explain.
Why do people feel the need to over explain things?
Is it because certain people give their listeners no credit? Or is it because people have no grasp of what simplicity is? Or is it because they want to impress others with their knowledge? And assert their intellectual superiority?
Or is it because they learnt this technique while they did their university thesis? While they tried to impress their professors so they could big note themselves afterwards? And take people on trips to the university archives to show them where their thesis is?
Wow. Can I have your autograph?
Yes I know life. I have lived and worked with other people living life and working. I have studied life at the highest level.
Anyone want my autograph?
In all simplicity? What a bunch of blog toss.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
you are the only one on here that keeps referring to "subjective science", why dont you tell us all what it is
David,
no
Damo asked a question
Have they actually worked with scientists?
and i answered it
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Actually, there is a great deal of subjectivity in science, I think - after all, we can't simply make observations without any prior knowledge. That is, every scientist comes to their observation with previous knowledge and bias.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
His initial value for 'e' was off, and people would later repeat the experiments or devise new ways of determining 'e'.
Well, over time, the value of 'e' rose until, finally, people settled on the value that we use today, generally accepted as correct. From the Wikipedia article:
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Morgon's original comment was nice a simple, and you didn't get it... or you were just being contrary. I chose to give you credit and act as if the former (since misunderstanding is a better thing that being intentionally disagreeable). I admit I'm not very succinct, but I was merely trying to be precise and had no ulterior motive I assure you. Simplicity, for brevities sake, has value, but to risk over-simplicity for this reason alone is to risk the pursuit for truth, which I hold as a thing with far greater value.
If you got what Morgan was saying in the first place, you could have just told me, but you chose instead to be facetious, which is your own prerogative. Just like taking offence and ranting was mine I guess.
Morgan, I don't actually think Damo was having a shot at you, but at the Intelligent Design folks you were taking to task.
Cibbuano, that's a good example and a good point.
I think the ID folks throw around the term `objective' to try and seem less bias and argue that natural selection proponents are making subjective leaps of logic in their `god is not required' conclusions (which mayhap they are). But, I think I've already stated (quite extensively) why I think ID theory misses the point of scientific pursuit. Although, I don't subscribe to strict natural selection as an evolutionary theory either, and think something more sophisticated- controlled necessitated mutation- might occur.
Damn, I really do suck at concision, don’t I? Thanks for your patience folks.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I just discovered the reason for your lack of brevity.
You spend so much time analysing, interpreting and writing about what other people meant and how other people didn't get what the other people meant.
You got what Morgan said. You got that I didn't get it (without really knowing whether or not I got it or not, hence the qualifier about contrariness), so you decided to let Morgan know you did get her point and me know that I didn't get her point if I wasn't being contrary, and her know that you got the fact I didn't get her point.
But at least you finally do get to the poin, and make a good pointt:
As to this?
You could have told me you didn't fully understand what I wrote in relationship to what Morgan wrote.
It's like this. There aren't many Orble posts worth reading. The comments sections are interesting though.
In real life? If I met you? All I'd say to you is. Can you get to the point? Now that offends some people. But it offends me to listen to dribble. If both people are adults? It's no big deal.
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Comment by Damo
They are quick to tout their scientific qualifications:
eg: Did something at uni; had a scientist to my wedding; I wuv science more than you etc.
Remarkable how such experience is meaningless if the raw data is wrong
Suddenly any mention of Objectivity and Science in the same sentence becomes a conspiracy theory about 'Intelligent Design.'
No one even mentioned that red herring but was raised as an objection to someone else's opinion. ie; "Don't listen to him he may be a secret Intelligent Design Agent trying to teach that world is only 4000 years old. Ooooww!!!"
All that just from two words? What a load bullocks.
I do find it remarkable that people are willing to sacrifice objectivity for the sake of dominance. However petty power struggles and science are two different things.
If people want to defend Richard Dawkins that is fine but heaven sake try to be rational about it. This poisoning of the well tactic is very transparent.
Bad reasoning is always bad science.
Subjective reasoning is bad reasoning.
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
However, I think it is a fairly empty- bordering on tautological- term; the scientific method is supposed to foster objectivity but it is darn near impossible to avoid some subjectivity when postulating hypothesis or formulating theories, after all `we're only human'. However, I do think that lateral thinking and leaps of logic (hunches etc), while not necessarily objective, have been very useful in terms of developing insights and suggesting pathways of explore. Also, economics, game theory, fuzzy logic and even chaos theory, to an extent, are areas where being completely objective is near to impossible, and subjective logic can be more readily and successfully applied.
The problem arises I think when one or another set of scienctist demand their conclusions be accepted as objective over contrary conclusions of another set; especially in relation to such and area as Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection where clearly insufficient evidence exists to make such conclusions.
However it is the position of the majority of scientists that Natural Selection and other non-intelligent design based theories- hold more worth of exploration and value as applicable approaches to discovery. Whether that proves true will have to be seen. (The majority have been wrong before).
I do definitely agree that many of Dawkins methods are inexact and he was downright rude, to the point of behaving irrationally, at some points in his doco series, which does his (and his "followers") cause no good, regardless of whether one agrees with his basic premise or not. (I am as yet udnersided on the issue).
However in regards to being `...quick to tout their scientific qualifications': you asked, dude! It’s a bit disingenuous to draw issue with us answering.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
actually i wasnt claiming there was no subjectivity in science
but yes i think you are quite right
thanks for the link to the experiment - interesting reading
Comment by Damo
Let me break this down for you in simple terms.
I dropped a hook and too many people jumped at it.
I got people putting hands up for innocence by association but few attacking the question as being irrelevant. In science there are no experts. Evidence trumps all.
When someone says that most scientist are X or Y and most scientists believe Z. They are bluffing. They need to substantiate those claims with solid verifiable evidence.
Funny how this all gets back to objectivity.
Everything else is just noise.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Belief in personal God [1914] [1933] [1998]
Personal belief (27.7) (15) (7.0)
Personal disbelief (52.7) (68) (72.2)
Doubt or agnosticism (20.9) (17) (20.8)
Belief in human immortality [1914] [1933] [1998]
Personal belief (35.2) (18) (7.9)
Personal disbelief (25.4) (53) (76.7)
Doubt or agnosticism (43.7) (29) (23.3)
Figures are percentages.
study by Edward J. Larson
Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia USA
Really Long Link
However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995).
This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
A vast majority (93 percent) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"
CWRU faculty report findings on evolution, intelligent design poll of Ohio's scientists - Oct 2002
Really Long Link
The Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Centre however has this to say:
This objective approach is being considered in Ohio, as the science standards subcommittee discusses a proposal that requires students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. The proposal would also allow, but not require, the teaching of scientific evidence for the theory of intelligent design (ID).
Really Long Link
The Intelligent Design Network has an interesting paper entitled "Technical Explanation of Objective Origins Science Policy"
Really Long Link
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And wala! I just picked a number off the top of my head.
Comment by Earl Leonard
Cook Focus
Earlsthoughts
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
You lit a fire here my friend... and I see there are so many happy to pour petrol onto it to keep it going, meanwhile the planet goes to hell. Its like the arguing can justify our destruction of ... ourselves?
I heard that lucifer (who originally mounted the rebellion) has apologised and been forgiven and we can all go home, but nobody has realised that the experiment in seperation has failed and is over? too bad.
Anyeewho, what I wanted to say; just to play devils advocate is that I have to agree with Dawkins on that quote. Religion has set itself up as out of bounds, in a frail shell of superiority that cannot be question, because ... well ... um... because ... does anyone know?
I dont think anyone has the direct transmitter for talking to God (even the Nazis) ...
The other thing I wanted to say is that I find the scientists ignorant need to prove the existance of God as if he was a man in the clouds with a science kit, absolutely moronic.
I think everyone on orble needs to go and spend a couple of hours watching Zeitgeist 1 and 2, especially those journalists and academics who think they know it all.
thats www.zeitgeistmovie.com (they are not in order, be sure to watch the 2007 one first, before the Addendum).
Lilla ...