Talk:Level of support for evolution/rewrite

=Article draft=

''This article is about the level of popular support for evolution among the scientists, the general population, and other groups. For the scientific evidence supporting evolution, see Evidence of evolution.''

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises as part of the creation-evolution controversy. This dispute is primarily an American phenomenon, but there are some foreign venues in which this controversy appears.

There is no scientific controversy about evolution because there is undeniable evidence of evolution and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute. In spite of this, some creationists and intelligent design advocates, have asserted that there is a significant scientific dispute and disagreement over the validity of evolution.



Moreover, because the American public level of support for evolution is much lower than the support for evolution among scientists, U.S. creationists claim that public schools should "teach the controversy"; that is, creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as science in American public schools. Similar efforts have been made, with varying degrees of success, by creationists in other countries as well. By contrast, nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim and a petition supporting the teaching of evolution was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. Additionally, U.S. courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases. In spite of this, creationists have made substantial inroads in the political sphere, probably benefitting from politicians hoping to capitalize on the public level of support for evolution.

Determining the level of support
Many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely disputed by those in scientific circles, and on the acceptance of evolution by the public, as well as religious and educational organizations. Therefore, gauging the level of support and scientific consensus in favor of evolution is of interest in evaluating assertions made by all sides of the controversy. Publications that examine these issues include McCollister and Asimov (1989), Matsumura (1998), and the book Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, released by the US National Academy of Sciences in 1998.

For many years, the main participants in the creation-evolution controversy have tried to demonstrate that they each have an edge in support among scientists, the public or other groups. Survey data, signed statements, petitions and lists are used, as well as proclamations and press releases by various organizations. In addition, public debates and court battles are used by various players to try advance their arguments and agendas. Although interesting, none of this is directly connected with the reason that scientists overwhelmingly accept the theory of evolution as a viable theory; that is, the scientific evidence.

Support among scientists
Creationists claim that there is a significant scientific disagreement among scientists about the theory of evolution. The scientific community disputes these claims, and has tried to demonstrate that the acceptance of evolution among scientists is almost universal, using petitions, survey results, and declarations by scientific organizations. In response, creationists have produced petitions signed by scientists who are opposed to the theory of evolution, and lists of scientists that disagree with evolution.

Major petitions and lists of scientists
Petitions signed by scientists and lists of scientists that support or dissent from evolution are an important method used by all sides of the creation-evolution controversy to champion their views. Sometimes clergy or other nonscientists are included in these petitions and lists.

One of the earliest efforts to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize Winner and German biologist, Hermann J. Muller, in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May of 1966:

This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including Nobel Prize Winner George G. Simpson of Harvard, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.



Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for evolution in the science community. One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there was a substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation" This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. Skeptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation supporters is misleading since it includes 3 people with PhD's in education, 2 in theology, 5 in engineering, 1 in physics, 1 in chemistry, 1 in hydrology, 1 in entomology, 1 in psycholinguistics, 1 in food science technology, 2 in biochemistry, 1 in ecology, 1 in physiology and 1 in geophysics, and therefore most of their backgrounds might not give them much authority in evolutionary biology.



Over the years, there have been repeated petitions presented by both pro-evolution and anti-evolution elements. Nobel Prizewinners, physicians, clergymen, biologists, archaeologists, physicists, geologists have signed statements proclaiming their support of evolution. Also, scientists and others have signed petitions expressing their objections to evolution. Creationists have also compiled lists of people who are purportedly scientists and do not accept the theory of evolution. None of these lists or petitions demonstrate anything conclusively, although.

A chronological list of various major petitions and lists produced by both of the main sides in the dispute appears below. Rows in the table that are unshaded belong to pro-evolution efforts. Shaded rows represent anti-evolution petitions and lists.

A large part of the difficulty in evaluating these petitions and lists is the problem of deciding who is and is not a "scientist." There has been a long-standing tradition of including people with all kinds of degrees and backgrounds on these tabulations and calling them "scientists". For example, similar lists of "scientists" have included people with philosophy degrees, education degrees, history degrees, English degrees, as well as dentists, optometrists, engineers, mathematicians, theologians or even people with degrees from diploma mills or bible colleges, as well as people who are deceased. This can pad a list considerably, making it very difficult to know how much value to ascribe to such a list.



A rough evaluation of the professional qualifications of a list of purported scientists can be made by enumerating those on a given list with at least a PhD in a natural science such as physics, chemistry or biology (preferably from a major accredited institution). Unfortunately, this excludes some who do science but are trained in other fields, or who have other kinds of degrees, and includes some nonscientists as well.

Another approximate measure for the "worth" of a given list can be determined by counting the number of individuals that have some level of professional qualification in a relevant field. For example, it is not useful to survey doctors when trying to forecast the weather, and not useful to get medical diagnoses from meteorologists or from pre-med students. In the case of probing the creationism-evolution controversy, those who are most relevant are those with doctoral-level training and expertise in biological evolution, such as biologists and paleontologists.

Polls and surveys
Another method that is often used to gauge the level of support for evolution among scientists or other groups is a poll or survey. Since the vast majority of those in the scientific community and academia support the theory of evolution as the only explanation that can fully explain observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others, this often amounts to trying to estimate a very small quantity. As in the case of petitions and lists, the question of what constitutes science and what scientific fields are relevant to judge the validity of evolution also arises in the evaluating survey results.



One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, is quoted as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" in a National Institutes of Health publication. A 1991 Gallup Poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. A more careful study of the level of support for evolution among scientists would include careful definitions of who is a scientist, and divide up the responses among those with training and background in different fields of science.

Resolutions
Another common method of demonstrating their commitment to evolution is for societies and organizations to make pronouncements to affirm their acceptance of certain core principles and beliefs.

5 There is also a long list of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism that has been compiled by the National Center for Science Education.

8 9 "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution&mdash;Why intelligent design isn't.

10 Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.

11 The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious US National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.

Shortly thereafter, the AAAS passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach creationism in science classes.

This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".

The United States National Academy of Sciences also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,

Support by religious bodies
Many creationists act as evangelists and preachers and other clergy, and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations. Some Christian creationists have claimed that they represent the beliefs of true Christians, and that acceptance of evolution is associated with atheism. In addition, Islamic creationists and Hindu creationists oppose evolution as being incompatible with their faiths or as an avenue for polluting their cultures with Western ideas and values.



However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, there are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools. Also, the Roman Catholic Church made major official declarations in support of evolution in 1950, 1996 and 2004. In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued a statement in support of evolution in 2006. The Clergy Letter Project was started in 2004, and produced a statement signed by 10,793 American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism.

Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%). These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

Science writer Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October, 2006 that evolution supports concepts like "family values", fidelity, moral codes, the rule of law, and avoiding lies. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.

On the other hand, in the U.S., many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution from the pulpits, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. A list of denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of "Darwinism" or evolution include the Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness churches.

Support by the medical community and industry
A common complaint of creationists is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit. In addition, the organization Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity maintains a list known as "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism", consisting of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism". This represents about 0.02% of the US medical community. However, this figure should be expected to rise, based on a poll of 1472 US physicians conducted by the "Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research" at the Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13-15, 2005. This study showed that 34% of physician respondents felt more comfortable with intelligent design than evolution.

By contrast, the Discovery Institute's Access Research Network claims that this same poll shows that 60 percent of physicians are skeptical of macroevolution: These are the figures quoted by the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views:

The reason for the apparent discrepancy is because of the way the questions were phrased, and the lumping of the largest group of respondents, those who subscribe to theistic evolution, in with the group rejecting "Darwinism".

On the other hand, evolution is being put to practical use in medicine, genetics and industry. Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.



Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry. Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the US risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution. James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter also points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology depended on the use of evolutionary theory.

A book review by Jerry Cohn in 2006 of the book The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David Mindell suggests that some of this enthusiasm might be excessive:

Support by educational organizations
There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. For example, the American National Association of Science Teachers, National Association of Biology Teachers, and National Education Association have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The Australian Science Teachers Association joined with other educational and scientific organizations in endorsing a letter in support of evolution in 2005.

Support by the judiciary
Creationists and intelligent design advocates have repeatedly lost suits in US courts. Some important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks include:




 * 1) 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court
 * 2) 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California
 * 3) 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court
 * 4) 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court
 * 5) 1990 Webster v. New Lennox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
 * 6) 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
 * 7) 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
 * 8) 2000 Rodney LeVake v. Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
 * 9) 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court
 * 10) 2006 Hurst v. Newman, US District Court, Eastern District of California

Support by politicians
Politicians sometimes allow creationists to make inroads in the political realm in the U.S. and other countries. The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. Through its Center for Science and Culture, the Institute conducts a number of related public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to force its beliefs into academia, which it claims is dogmatic and hidebound.

Support by the public
Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of creationism's validity as a scientific theory. In some countries, creationist beliefs have made substantial inroads with the public, even garnering the majority of public opinion. Given the political power this public support represents, it is likely that there will be more conflict and controversy in the future.

A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution from the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.

United Kingdom
A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the all possible views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.

United States
There have been numerous public surveys to try to ascertain levels of belief in evolution. The results of these polls are not the same in all countries that are surveyed. The US has one of the highest levels among industrialized countries of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origin of the diversity of life forms on earth.

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, about 43% of American believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll. Only 14% believe that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism. A poll in November of 1999 done for People for the American Way found that 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of the members of the US National Academy of Science showing that 93% of those survey respondents did not believe in a personal God.

A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70 percent of evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.

Examining public support
It is illuminating to examine public support of evolution and other principles in greater detail. A study by Miller et al (1997) felt fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy. A 1999 poll done for People for the American Way found only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list.

Polls were conducted by Bryan Farha at Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward of the University of Central Oklahoma in 2006, and compared to the results of a Gallup poll in 2001. They found results that were consistent with the Gallup poll statistics.

Other surveys by different organizations at different times have found very similar results. A 2001 Gallup Poll found that the general public embraced the following: 54% of people believed in psychic/spiritual healing, 42% believed in haunted houses, 41% believed in satanic possession, 36% in telepathy, 25% in reincarnation, and 15% in channeling. A survey by Jeffrey S. Levin, associate professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk found that over 2/3 of the U.S. population reported having at least one mystical experience.

A 1996 Gallup poll estimated that 71% of the people in the United States believed that the government was covering up information about UFOs. A 2002 Roper poll conducted for the Sci Fi channel reported that 56% thought UFOs were real craft and 48% that aliens had visited the Earth.

A 2001 National Science Foundation survey found that 9 percent of people polled thought astrology was very scientific, and 31 percent thought it was somewhat scientific. About 32% of Americans surveyed stated that some numbers were lucky, while 46% of Europeans agreed with that claim. About 60% of all people polled believed in some form of Extra-sensory perception and 30% thought that UFOs were "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations." New Scientist reported in 2006 that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is much closer to 95-99%, depending on the primates involved and the study used.

Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are. Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to biblical literalism. For example, among the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many creationist principles wholeheartedly.

There are other difficulties in interpreting these results because many of the survey questions are not well designed. For example, the 2005 Harris poll results included the following:

Unfortunately, the answering options are not mutually exclusive, yet the respondent must choose only one option, not a collection of options. Since most Americans probably hold a combination of the first and second options, which correspond to theistic evolution, this creates a difficulty. People who support creationism might want to choose a combination of the second and third options. It is also conceivable that some respondents would want to choose a combination of 3 of the 4 options, or even all 4 options. Therefore, it is very difficult to interpret the poll results.

From these results, it appears to be difficult to ascertain the validity or usefulness of estimated public levels of belief.

Support trends
The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated.

Early impact of Darwin's theory
The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time. Darwin's theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" felt "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."

By the late 1800s, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient earth, and life on earth before Eden. Victorian era creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to theistic evolution today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan interpreted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the Noachian Flood was only a local phenomenon.

In the decades of the 1900s, George Macready Price and a tiny group of Seventh-day Adventist followers were the among the very few believers in a Young Earth and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris’s book Genesis Flood in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict biblical literalists.

Recent public beliefs
In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53 percent of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe," and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." Even more surprising was the level of support among high school biology teachers, from 30% in Illinois to 69% in Kentucky.

The National Center for Science Education reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. Jon Miller of Michigan State University, working with Eugenie Scott and Shinji Okamoto, has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.

In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.

Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is becoming more of an issue in the UK as well. One report in 2006 was that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.

Recent scientific trends
The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.158% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that it had secured the endorsements of about 600 scientists after several years' effort.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.

Therefore, the increase in biological science graduates, in addition to the net immigration of scientists from foreign countries to the US, would be expected to increase the total number of biological scientists in the US. Again NSF statistics demonstrate that this is correct. The National Science Foundation Science Resources Statistics Division estimates that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well. If the trends in the NSF statistics continued until 2007, there were even more biological scientists in the US in 2007.

Therefore, the 700 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.063% of the roughly 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists that existed in the US in 1999.

However, these figures might be an overestimate:


 * A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters are mathematicians, physicists, engineers and others who never deal with evolution, or even biology, professionally. Ken Chang of the New York Times found that in February of 2006, about 75.1% of the Darwin Dissenters were not biologists. Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
 * It is likely that there were more biologists and earth scientists in the US in 2007 than there were in 1999. The number of people graduating in biology and the net increase in biologists through immigration have probably continued to increase, so that the figure of 955,000 is likely an underestimate of the number of US biologists in 2007.
 * The list of Darwin Dissenters includes many foreign scientists, which also results in an overestimate of the percentage of scientists that do not accept evolution.

It should also be noted that the statement signed by the Darwin Dissenters merely expresses skepticism about evolution, and is not a ringing endorsement of supernatural intervention in the natural world.

Although these figures are only estimates, they do seem to indicate that while public support for creationism and intelligent design is increasing, scientific support for it appears to be steadily decreasing.

Validity of polling, surveys, resolutions, etc.
In this controversy, both sides have put substantial and increasing amounts of effort to produce long lists of supporters, or signed statements or collections of resolutions. These fall in the category of "argumentum ad populum", or arguing that the strength of one's position is correct because of the force of numbers supporting it. Of course, as creationist Bert Thompson asserts, "truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote".

This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that evolution is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists.

There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."

Links to include

 * canaadian public statistics on creationism

Other links

 * 2004-pres.
 * "Clergy Letter Project"
 * Michael Zimmerman
 * 10758
 * 10758 clergy
 * 10758 clergy

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. On the 12 August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal.

In the January 16-17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.

Although the Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design (and it may not if intelligent design is not proven to be a science) it actively supported Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, in his denunciation of intelligent design “Intelligent design diminishes God”.

That's not a list, this is a list

 * http://litcandle.blogspot.com/2005/08/thats-not-list-this-is-list-apologies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 01:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Darwin skeptics

 * http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html

Darwin Skeptics

A Select List of Academics, Scientists and Scholars Involved in Various Creationist Movements and Intelligent Design.

Author: Jerry Bergman Ph.D. Subject: Apologetics Date: 09/11/2006 Revolution Against Evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 03:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)