Evolution Endorsed by Steves

Genrou writes "National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has started an interesting and unusual project. Project Steve gathered about 220 scientists - almost all holding PhDs in all areas of science, and inlcuding two Nobel prize winners, eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, and several well-known authors of popular science books - signed a statement on the importance of teaching evolution and against intelligent design. The unusual part is that all of them are named Steve. Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director of NCSE, explained: "Creationists are fond of amassing lists of PhDs who deny evolution to try to give the false impression that evolution is somehow on the verge of being rejected by the scientific community. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hundreds of scientists endorsed the NCSE statement. And we asked only scientists named Steve -- who represent approximately 1% of scientists.""

Comments

Modern science

[ahy]

If we apply this scientific method to computer science, Microsoft could have collected 220 computer specialists telling the world that Linux is bad, and everyone would have to agree.

--
ah.

Re:Modern science

[KeyserDK]

No, this is actually a better evidence than 220 people with no specific names. Statiscal that is, i think that is some of the (intentioned) phun =). Picking a specific name is merely a way saying that the selected persons were chosen randomly of out every ph.d out there.

Picking out 220 ph.d's out of every ph.d in the US. and they end up having the same stance on a particular issue is not much prove at all as you say. There is no one who can claim that they are truly choosen randomly, and therefore representing the rest of the ph.d's

However if you say that all them must be named steve you have chosen a group (hard to prove otherwise) that they have been elected randomly out of all the ph.d's.

If this group then have a particular stance on a issue it is well proven that it could represent all of ph.d's in the US

This however doesnt prove _anything_ about the particular issue, but it does say something about what the opinion of the ph.d's in general are.

Creationists taking biblical text out of context

[jcasey]

The major mistake that creationists make is their attempt to interpret biblical information in a scientific context. It should be noted that the author(s) of the book of Genesis did not write the story of the creation in order to teach how the world came to be, rather it was written to express a spiritual concept - that of a parental higher power, god, or divine origin that preceedes mankind. It suggests that this god preceedes mankind and is therefor not man made. Mistake number two is trying to create a scientific theory that justifies this misinterpretation (putting the cart in front of the horse)

RTFA

[yarbo]

The article isn't saying evolution is right (that's another debate). It's saying that the scientific community is nowhere near about to reject it.

Re:Here's a Steve that disagrees

[vallee]

> My name is Steve (OK, it's actually Stephen).

> I disagree, I don't endorse evolution... but I
> guess my opinion doesn't count, as I don't have
> a PhD (or any other doctorate).

> And since this is an article about Steve's, why
> does it list someone called Eugenie "Steve" C.
> Scott?

> Are there 220 non PhD Steve's (or Stephen,
> Esteban, or Stephanie, as the site states) that
> want to join me in a non-endorsement of
> Evolution (and I don't mean the Ximian product!)

> -Steve

What an ironic plan you've got there, Steve!

All you would prove by doing this is that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in evolution. This will just play into NCSE's hands, don't you think, about the teaching of evolution? :-)

How about 220 PhD Steve's non-endorsing evolution... what, too hard? lol

Paul

I have no free will

[Frans Faase]

I wonder if all these scientist would also have signed a statement like:

• I hereby declare that I am the product of a random process that happened by change. That I am not more than the sum of a very complex physical process. Although I do experience some kind of consciousness, I declare that it is a mere illusion produced by my brain. The logical consequence from this position is also that I do not have a free will, and that as far as I do think that I have a free will, this is a mere illusion. My actions are completely defined by the past. It is purely by change that I signed this statement. It is the result of some random physical process whoes nature is beyond my comprehension. (Actually, the concept of "comprehension" is an illusion as well.)

They should have asked...

[Kopretinka]

They should have chosen different names - they should have asked Adams and Eves. I don't know how the percentage would be affected, or the resulting numbers, but it would certainly be slightly more impressive. 8-)

Oh, and it would include women scientists, too. 8-)

We're shielding ourselves from evolution

[wanderb]

IMHO with all the recent 'safety-measures' we humans are applying around us we are prohibiting the further evolution of the human race. Back in the good ol' days if you did something stupid you croaked. Now you either can't do something stupid or we'll fix you up again.
This results in the human race getting weaker, because we don't 'filter' out the weaklings anymore.
I propose some sort of auto-darwination law in which all safeguards against 'stupid' actions should be removed. (Eg. no more airbags and seatbelts)

It's the only way to further ourselves! ;-]

It's about the scientific method.

[cornice]

I am constantly amazed by this whole thing. Like it or not science and religion are both belief systems. Depending on what school you attend, you might have a class for each. Religion seems to think it's OK to subvert the scientific method while science (some science teachers anyway) seem to think it's OK to claim that science delivers truth.

You keep your religions texts out of my science class and I'll quit stating theory as truth. Now are you happy? Didn't think so...

Only in the "Science curricula"

[ggwood]

The statement only rejects the teaching of creationist pseudo-science in the science curricula. It does not say creationism should not be taught as a religious belief. I don't think any of the scientist would want these students to be intentionally not taught about relgion. Some of the religious opponents do want young people to be ignorant of the scientific evidence for evolution.

It is probably wise to only include in the science curricula what has been arrived at via the scientific method. I don't think anyone believes creationism was arrived at via the scientific method.

First, this is not to say that when two different disciplines contradict one another there should be no conversation on it. However, you first have to know what the disciplines are saying before you have a conversation. I am sure you are all aware that in the US there have been attempts to replace evolution altogether by creationism.

Another example would be the Christian teaching that:
Mark 10:25 - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Verus the implicit "maximize your wealth" philosophy taught in economics classes.

We should see both points of view and decide for ourselves - with their strengths and weaknesses. Scince should be taught in science classes, religion in social sciences, literature or religion classes.

You probably would not read origional science texts as literature as they would not be great examples of writing. (Perhaps some are.) You should not read about religious beliefs which do not make very good science. (Perhaps some do.)

Should there be more integration of knowledge from different fields together? Certainly - but only after the fundamentals are mastered. It is on this we should focus first because despite the well educated slashdot readers, there are many high school students who cannot read or write, and I know from personal experience that many, many of them here at Cal State University Northridge cannot do any algebra at all. I would trade in an instant all their knowledge of evolution for a single decent semester of math.

Please, please remember how poor our education system is in America (please ignore if you aren't in America) before wasting breath and emotion on evolution. There are bigger fish to fry.

Re:Creationists taking biblical text out of contex

[nathanh]

Evolution and Creation share the same problem. They are both improvable.

Evolution is a fact with several real-world examples this past decade. Evolution is most certainly "improvable": if it wasn't then it could never be labelled a science. Falsifiable hypothesis is the keystone of all science.

Regardless of the weight of evidence to support evolution available now or at any point in the future it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to prove that God was not involved. In reality it comes down to a metaphysical discussion on the existence of God, and both are not scientific.

Evolution is science. It says nothing about the existence of God. Having all the answers is not a pre-requisite for being scientific. You are being ignorant when you claim otherwise.

Re:Creationists taking biblical text out of contex

[nathanh]

Is there a point in debating this?

No, which is why I don't bother. Creationists purposefully ignore contrary evidence, overstep their area of expertise, fradulently claim skills and knowledge that they do not have, and repeat "arguments" that have already been shown to be false.

As I've said before, I don't debate with creationists. I treat them with the contempt I'd reserve for any religious nutcase who perverts science and attacks education. I ridicule them. I attack them. My purpose is not to enlighten you, but to make you stop talking.

In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact?

Because it is a fact. That you bring up the tired old argument of "evolution is just chance" is exactly why I don't bother with debate. You repeat this refuted argument as if it's still a matter for debate! It is not.