It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
skeptical enquirerReligious belief among scientists stable for eighty years -
survey on US scientists' belief in God
According to a recent survey, 40 percent of U.S. scientists say they believe in God. The results, detailed in the April 3, 1997, edition of the journal Nature, surprisingly parallel the findings of a similar survey conducted over eighty years ago.
In 1916, researcher James Leuba polled one thousand biologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and physicists about their religious beliefs. Much to the astonishment of his contemporaries, Leuba found that 60 percent of scientists did not believe in God, and he predicted that with the spread of education, religion would increasingly be rejected.
Well Whammy, you are still yet to prove to me that God exists. I have both challenged you and asked you cavortly on many mutual occasions, you have failed everytime and always seem to resort to name calling, mocking, and sarcastic jaundiced satire.
ast 80 years?
it's the year 2008, your data is 12 years outdated...
which is kind of a big deal
science has never claimed to make the belief in god unnecessary,
whambam, stop beating the strawmen to death.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I reported on a factual study I thought you were a champion of reason and evidence? You don't seem to like evidence so much when its against your pet causes...
*cough*
But atheists claim it all the time with science as their rationale.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Satire was all that was left...
you ruined you credibility as someone reasonable to have a discussion with when you claimed you "were the universe" and you could "create an animal". I just do not take you seriously enough to waste my time anymore.
It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA -- an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought.
Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA.
Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce.
In the coming year, they hope to transplant it into a cell, where it is expected to "boot itself up," like software downloaded from the Internet, and cajole the waiting cell to do its bidding. And while the first synthetic chromosome is a plagiarized version of a natural one, others that code for life forms that have never existed before are already under construction.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Sure, I could create an animal. It's scientifically feasible. Catch up man, it's the 21st century. The evolution of the planet Earth and the species of dog along with other un-named and currently unknown events caused my dog to be the way that it is.
According to the premises that intelligent design freely allows, speciation isn't very hard to explain. If natural selection can produce variations without miraculous help, there is every reason to suppose that it can yield more fundamental types as well. Indeed, Darwin believed, and many contemporary biologists agree, that the very distinction between variation and speciation is vacuous. One species can be distinguished from its closest kin only retrospectively, when it is found that the two can no longer interbreed. The cause of that splitting can be something as mundane as a geographical barrier erected between two groupings of the same population, whose reproductive systems or routines then develop slight but fateful differences. And if one of those sets then goes extinct without leaving traces that come to the notice of paleontologists, the surviving set may not be considered a new species after all, since no discontinuity in breeding will have come to light...
In effect, then, the intelligent design team has handed argumentative victory to its opponents before the debate has even begun. As the movement's acknowledged leader, the emeritus UC-Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson, concedes in his latest book, The Wedge of Truth, "If nature is all there is, and matter had to do its own creating, then there is every reason to believe that the Darwinian model is the best model we will ever have of how the job might have been done." Such a weak hand prompts Johnson and others to retreat to the Bible for "proof" that nature is subordinate to God. If scientists can't perceive this all-important truth, it's because their "methodological naturalism" partakes of a more sweeping "metaphysical naturalism"—that is, a built-in atheism. Once this blindness to spiritual factors becomes generally recognized, the persuasiveness of Darwinism will supposedly vanish.
- Frederick C. Crews, Saving Us from Darwin
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
... tag mel next!
this is why i'm saying you're using a strawman.
atheists have never said that there aren't theistic scientists
also, the evidence is actually in favor of atheists...60% of scientists are atheists...that's a MASSIVE percentage, especially when you consider that atheists are, at most, 15% of the population.
originally posted by Bigwhammy
n 1916 response rate was 70%
believed in God----41.8%
Atheist-----------41.5%
Agnostic----------16.7
In 1996 the response rate was 60%
believed in God----39.6%
Atheist-----------45.5%
Agnostic----------14.9%
Hardly what the ATS Atheist evangelists would have us believe - That science and empirical evidence has somehow trivialized belief in God. Among REAL scientists even all the advances for the last 80 years haven't changed the numbers.
hell, the higher up you get in science, the more distinguished and more published you go, the higher the percentage is.
atheists make up at least 80% of the royal academy in england and 90% of the national academy of sciences...
so your argument is basically both flawed and attacking a strawman.
all the advances for the last 80 years haven't changed the numbers.
quote]all the advances for the last 80 years haven't changed the numbers.
Which wooooooshed over the entire Atheist Tag Teams heads.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The Atheist Tag Team just put up a wall of nonsense about createing synthetic animals and other off topic nonsense. Thanks for playing... tag mel next!
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
TAG
just 6 minutes later TAG
TAGS off to
Yes and you all entirely missed the point. :bnghd:
I apologize that I am unable to dumb it down enough for you.
...
all the advances over 80 years haven't changed the number of scientists who believe in God. I hear you guys claim to be atheists due to evidence.
Which raises a very valid question: Perhaps scientific evidence has very little to do with Atheism...
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
whew... all that typing and still yet to address the actual topic. The number stayed steady over 80 years was the topic for the 4th time. Your very talented at tap dancing.
Originally posted by melatonin
I just said. Who cares?
Nothing has changed on the 'god' front for 80 years. It was a belief based on lack of evidence 80 years ago, it is a belief based on lack of evidence now.
Being a scientist doesn't preclude an individual from having faith-based beliefs. I would assume they are pretty good at compartmentalisation.
So, if you were unable to grasp my response for a second time.
Who cares? Why does it matter?
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I do. Apparently plenty of others do as well.
It raises the issue for your faith that the scientific evidence garnered over the last 80 years has little to do with atheism.
:shk: Atheists held the contention an eternal universe --- oooops the evidence points a creation event. The anthropic principle shows the fine tuning of the universe to be impossible to chance. Famous Atheist philosopher Antony Flew recants his atheist faith for theism due to evidence.
It raises the issue for your faith that the scientific evidence garnered over the last 80 years has little to do with atheism. Not that atheism has ever had anything to do with evidence or reason. In fact the evidence has changed considerably toward theism over the last 80 years.