The Evolution Conspiracy

[KATA_LOUKAN]

Hello all,

First of all, let me say that this thread is not intended to be a incendiary attack on either creationism or evolution (and all their permutations). Furthermore, I would like to leave matters of science out of this equation (i.e. radiometric dating, flood geology, cosmology, etc) so we can stick with the philosophy of biology.

I have been doing much thinking recently, and I feel that the YEC/OEC/theistic evolution controversy is one of the most important issues in both theology and science, although the scientific and conservative religious establishments have already formed their opinions on the matter.

My question to those who believe in YEC is this. Given the nearly universal (>99%) acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community, how is it that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields have concluded so thoroughly that evolution is a fact? Such a large number would indicate (at least to me) that is must be a conspiracy.

Nearly 40% of scientists claim to be Christian, and yet, even though YEC would make our explanation of the world much less complicated, only a tiny fraction choose to believe it.

Even the great names in science who are Christian (Miller, Collins, and Colling come to mind) don't feel the need to believe in a literal account of Genesis. So why is the thought of evolution so discomforting to Christians of a literalist mindset?

[Studyin'2Show]

I don't have a problem with the thought of evolution. Evolution, or change over time is not a problem from the YEC perspective. In fact, change over time is required for all the speciation since the ark. What I do not buy into is the random chance and all from nothing darwinian evolution. Understanding that truth does not come from majority opinion, the number of scientists that believe this or that does not affect my perception of truth. I do think the >99% assumption you make is high when considering all from nothing evolution. I think there is more dissention than that. When mentioning the more broad change over time evolution, I see no conflict with YEC. I hope I've answered your question effectively.

God Bless!

[Athanasius]

Kata, where are you getting your statistics from, if you don't mind me asking?

[BroRog]

Hello all,

First of all, let me say that this thread is not intended to be a incendiary attack on either creationism or evolution (and all their permutations). Furthermore, I would like to leave matters of science out of this equation (i.e. radiometric dating, flood geology, cosmology, etc) so we can stick with the philosophy of biology.

I have been doing much thinking recently, and I feel that the YEC/OEC/theistic evolution controversy is one of the most important issues in both theology and science, although the scientific and conservative religious establishments have already formed their opinions on the matter.

My question to those who believe in YEC is this. Given the nearly universal (>99%) acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community, how is it that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields have concluded so thoroughly that evolution is a fact? Such a large number would indicate (at least to me) that is must be a conspiracy.

Nearly 40% of scientists claim to be Christian, and yet, even though YEC would make our explanation of the world much less complicated, only a tiny fraction choose to believe it.

Even the great names in science who are Christian (Miller, Collins, and Colling come to mind) don't feel the need to believe in a literal account of Genesis. So why is the thought of evolution so discomforting to Christians of a literalist mindset?

After watching the documentary "Expelled" last night, I will take all statements about scientific agreement with a very large grain of salt.

[Literalist-Luke]

After watching the documentary "Expelled" last night, I will take all statements about scientific agreement with a very large grain of salt.

I was just about to suggest that some of that "99%" might be simply trying to preserve their careers. And I saw "Expelled" in the theater, it was very powerful. I was stunned to learn of Baylor's involvement. As a former Southern Baptist, it was very disheartening.

[GitRDunn]

After watching the documentary "Expelled" last night, I will take all statements about scientific agreement with a very large grain of salt.

What is that about?

[Literalist-Luke]

"Expelled" is a documentary hosted by Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame) that discusses the tendency in the science community to blackball anybody who publicly adopts an "intelligent design" stance regarding origins. If you don't preach evolution, the argument goes, you're unworthy of being a scientist. Ben Stein's documentary sets out to expose this and to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such practices.

[GitRDunn]

"Expelled" is a documentary hosted by Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame) that discusses the tendency in the science community to blackball anybody who publicly adopts an "intelligent design" stance regarding origins. If you don't preach evolution, the argument goes, you're unworthy of being a scientist. Ben Stein's documentary sets out to expose this and to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such practices.

Hmm, I might have to look into watching this because it sounds to me like I'm not going to agree with it all. I don't think it is as bad as it might be making it out to be. With a short time to present facts you can easily find enough testimonies/examples to support your side, but things are often less extreme than people want to make the out to be. I won't say anything about it for sure, though, because I haven't seen it and that wouldn't be fair to it.

[Literalist-Luke]

Hmm, I might have to look into watching this because it sounds to me like I'm not going to agree with it all. I don't think it is as bad as it might be making it out to be. With a short time to present facts you can easily find enough testimonies/examples to support your side, but things are often less extreme than people want to make the out to be. I won't say anything about it for sure, though, because I haven't seen it and that wouldn't be fair to it.

I should probably clarify that Stein is not opposing the teaching of evolution, he's only opposing the suppression of intelligent design theory. He's arguing that both ideas should both be allowed to be presented in the "marketplace of ideas" and fend for themselves.

[GitRDunn]

I should probably clarify that Stein is not opposing the teaching of evolution, he's only opposing the suppression of intelligent design theory. He's arguing that both ideas should both be allowed to be presented in the "marketplace of ideas" and fend for themselves.

Ok, it seems I misinterpreted it at first somewhat, but as I said before, I won't say anything definite either way until I watch it (if I can find time to).

[Luke34]

For those questioning the 99% figure: "Only" 95% of all scientists accept evolution, but about 99.85% of scientists who work in evolution-related fields (e.g. biology, geology) do so. Via TalkOrigins:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). 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.

[BroRog]

For those questioning the 99% figure: "Only" 95% of all scientists accept evolution, but about 99.85% of scientists who work in evolution-related fields (e.g. biology, geology) do so. Via TalkOrigins:

You know, I remember that Sadam Hussain got at least 99% of the vote in the last election before we attacked his country. The other 1% were rounded up and never heard from again. When the voice of discent is gagged, the majority opinion will hover around 100%

Grant money is a powerful inducement to support the current paradigm.

Do you know where the term "ostricism" came from? Every year the citizens of Athens (I think) voted to expell one citizen from the city. Each citizen would write down the name of the person to be expelled on a piece of broken pottery known as the "ostrakon".

The founding fathers of the American Experiment attempted to mitigate this terrible aspect of majority rule when, for example, they gave each state two senetors no matter how big the state. As I understand it, the electoral college was also established to mitigate mob rule.

If the gatekeepers of knowledge suppress the truth, then we are losing both the truth and our liberty.

[Studyin'2Show]

What is that about?

Here are some of the trailers from the movie. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php

[*Hope*]

It isn't a conspiracy. And it isn't about science. It's about philosophy. Once naturalism became widespread in America, people accepted the worldview first. After that, their "science", art, media and every other field became not only influenced by it...but driven by it.

[GitRDunn]

You know, I remember that Sadam Hussain got at least 99% of the vote in the last election before we attacked his country. The other 1% were rounded up and never heard from again. When the voice of discent is gagged, the majority opinion will hover around 100%

Grant money is a powerful inducement to support the current paradigm.

Do you know where the term "ostricism" came from? Every year the citizens of Athens (I think) voted to expell one citizen from the city. Each citizen would write down the name of the person to be expelled on a piece of broken pottery known as the "ostrakon".

The founding fathers of the American Experiment attempted to mitigate this terrible aspect of majority rule when, for example, they gave each state two senetors no matter how big the state. As I understand it, the electoral college was also established to mitigate mob rule.

If the gatekeepers of knowledge suppress the truth, then we are losing both the truth and our liberty.

Perhaps, but looking at the issue from a science perspective, I actually think those numbers are probably about accurate for a couple reasons. First, basically 100% (don't hold me to this number, I am coming up with this on my own) on atheistic scientists are going to believe in evolution and as for Christian (can't say for sure about those of other religions) scientists, I believe many of them lean toward theistic (God) controlled evolution and I doubt there are too many who lied in the poll because it is a completely anonymous poll and no one would even know who voted what way, so there wouldn't be the intimidation factor.