Talk:Level of support for evolution

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Evolution. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of evolution or argue for or against evolution please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

are there any pro-science editors here?

Imbrella has still failed to raise any specific issues with this article, so I have moved this thread to her talkpage (if you want to debate her further, then do so there). An article's talkpage is a forum for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a soapbox for vague complaints and rants. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I venture that we shun Imbrella - unless he/she brings up a valid point, just ignore it. I've wasted enough time here. Imbrella - if you bring up a point we consider worth addressing, we will address it. Otherwise, consider a complete lack of response to your comment a consensus that your suggestion has no merit. We all monitor these pages, so we're all reading your comments, and we have all read what you've written to date. And to date, consensus is a complete lack of merit to your contributions. Go elsewhere. Edit. Come back and read. If you still feel the need to post, do so in an appropriate manner. WLU 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this cite #91 goes no where

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.[91]

 +  
 + And this resource is erroneous. Imbrella 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you have sources that dont even exist. Imbrella 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

??? It goes here [1]. ScienceApologist 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Numerous copies of the article in this citation do in fact exist. The link in question was semi-broken (in that the portal it led to would not give easy access to the article), so I relinked it to a still-viable copy. No real issue -- the sort of thing that real editors handle all the time, without making a song and dance on the talkpage about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the complaints. Frankly, they are baseless.--Filll 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd reply, but I'm still shunning. I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section. WLU 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead links is a problem I also have when I save journal articles to my Favorites when Im dong literature searches. It is good to report dead links but it is not a major issue-more a technical problem with Wikipedia. I haven't read all of Imbrella's comment but much seems a rant that no other editor understands science is my first impression. I can't find specific complaints about content only complaints about choices of citations. Actually, we could use peer-reviewed literature and books to support a posit rather than use Talkorigins (which was my initial response too), but for an encyclopedia Talkorigins has the advantage of being accessible and a resource for the novice, and it contains similar citations and references from books and journals. My knee jerk response was not to use Talkorgins as a reference but for an encyclopedia it really offers a wealth of info and addresses common questions and misconceptions, so I see the advantages (I would agree some material is dated). In regard to Imbrella he appears to be trolling and perhaps WLU is correct to ignore. Regards, GetAgrippa 01:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I should learn how to use those tools for capturing links so they never go bad. Anyway, I see plenty of problems with this article, which is why I have been working on rewriting it. However, people seem to complain about the silliest things, IMHO.--Filll 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

recent trends section

This section is full of OR. If I delete all sentences that are OR, the following will remain

*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,[20] 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.[131]

*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.[132]

*Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.054% of the roughly 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists that existed in the US in 1999.

* A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters are mathematicians, physicists, engineers and others. Ken Chang of the New York Times found that in February of 2006, about 75.1% of the Darwin Dissenters were not biologists.[133]

* The list of Darwin Dissenters includes many non-US scientists.

* 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.

Of course this is now terribly pulled apart and patchwork, but it would be a start to condense the section into something less OR. Some other things to consider:

1. Add public to the first sentence: The level of public support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal.
2. The first paragraph mixed data from US scientists with data of scientists all over the world.
3. round the number to 1.1 million in paragraph 4.

....as a start Northfox 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Northfox: have you any hard (i.e. quantitative, not anecdotal) evidence that level of "public support for creationism among relevant scientists" is different from the level of "support for creationism among relevant scientists"? Otherwise insertion of "public" is nothing more than illegitimate equivocation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn here. This is a request for a nonsense rewording. You want to insert the word "Public"? ?? What does that mean?

Look, what has often been claimed by creationists (I probably can and should find a link) is that the level of support for scientists for creationism is growing, that evolution is increasingly a failed theory etc. This is complete nonsense, and in fact the opposite is closer to correct. To be able to put these claims and the numbers collected by the Discovery Institute in proper context, one has to know how many scientists in relevant fields has the DI found compared to the total number of scientists in the relevant fields. And that is what is done in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your points 2 and 3 are silly as well. Of course data from the US is mixed with data from the entire world in that one paragraph, but you already claimed that observation was OR. So which is it?

It is quite clear from the first sentence of my discussion that the remaining sentences (and with them the last sentences of the first paragraph) are the ones that I think at NOT original research. Correct? Isn't it also correct that the 480,000 number is about US scientists, and the DI's 600 are world wide? I do not see any discrepancy in my argument here. Just a request for an clarification that the DI number is a world wide figure.Northfox 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rounding can be done but it will not change the final figures much. If the numbers are rounded, someone will claim this is OR. Better to just quote the numbers exactly as they are.--Filll 11:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

but the text says roughly, and then gives a number down to the rounded hundred of a one million figure. So if it is roughly, not exactly, it can be rounded to two significant digits, IMHO. Northfox 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, back to my original proposal to drain all the OR from that section. Anyone wants to try to get rid of all the it can be estimated, therefore, it is likely, seem to indicate blatant original research sentences? Northfox 14:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments here are to an old section, but if I'm going to comment on below, I might as well include them here.

1. I think the inclusion of 'public' would be silly. If scientists are unwilling to publically commit to criticizing evolution, that's a tactic endorsement of its worth. I think public would be a weasel word in this context - it gives the impression that they disagree in private.
2. I don't see the mixing, but even looking for it, I don't see a problem here.
3. There's advantages and disadvantages to rounding - a precise number is very authoritative, but also very long. I have a slight preference to leave it as the more precise number. WLU 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

recent public belief section

here is a summary of many polls over the years. This section here starts with the Gallup poll in 1991 that allowed for the analysis of university graduate responses, but the newer one (2005) doesn't quote any info about graduates. Would be nice if there was a comparison. Where to find the original Gallup data? Northfox 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This poll is garbage -- 19% of respondents think that it is definitely or probably true that "human beings developed over millions of years" and that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years", both at the same time. Two explicitly contradictory positions can't both be "probably true", let alone "definitely true". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

it is not our job as editors to judge if a poll is garbage or not. Believe me - I got burned once trying that. As editors, we just have to report what is reported. And a newer report on graduate numbers would compliment the reported older numbers. Northfox 13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A self-contradictory poll is by definition unreliable, and so impermissible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

is the poll self-contradictory, or are the people answering the poll self-contradictory? If the latter, the poll is still significant and can stay. I think you'll have a hard time prove the former. Northfox 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The poll reports self-contradictory results. It is thus unreliable. It should not be included in the article. Stop being obtuse. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As such, it is a good example of how unreliable these polls are. In any case, these poll figures are not much different than what was obtained previously. To the best of my knowledge, the level of support by the public for creationism and evolution has been essentially stable for the last 100 years or so. At about the same level as these polls your link shows, which is about what is stated in the article. --Filll 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's so much on the page, I don't know what point is being supported - it could be useful as a source for the amount of public support for evolution, but it'd be difficult to pull out a single poll. I'd have to see a specific sentence mixed with a specific poll result. And I'd rather it were linked to the actual poll than a summary site. WLU 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citaton templates

I went through the lead and changed everything to citation templates, and did a couple other MOS formatting things. I believe I caught all the changes between the original version I used and the current one, but feel free to check through. WLU 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could people please check what these citation templates produce, rather than simply filling them in blindly. The templates for the Amicus Brief citation yielded a long-winded and not particularly informative citation. I have attempted to fix it, by making sure that mention of the brief came before the court case, and clearing out a long list of names of lawyers who were purely incidental to the reasons for inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I went through and constructed that particular template at an ENORMOUS expenditure time and thought on Evolution as theory and fact, but only because I couldn't figure a cleaner way of doing so. Your simplifications are a great improvement, I'll paste it over there. WLU 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Section: Examining the level of public support

Most of this section is about belief and poll results in general and has very little direct connection to the article. I removed one particular OR paragraph. The rest should be revised, too. Northfox 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It gives context to popular disbelief in Evolution, by providing other instances of popular beliefs unsupported by scientific evidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Per request from User: Filll, I detail my objections to the last paragraph of this section.

There are other difficulties in interpreting these results...

Says who? The editor? Then it is POV and should be removed. If a third party, then a citation is needed.

...because many of the survey questions are not well designed.

Says who? The editor? Then it is POV and should be removed. If a third party, then a citation is needed.

The poll results that follow this sentence could stay as they are, but if the surrounding paragraph is removed because of the serious OR and POV content, it makes little sense to keep the table with poll results, especially since the poll is mentioned above in the article.

Unfortunately,...

Says who? POV, should be removed.

...the answering options are not mutually exclusive,...

Says who? An editor, I assume since there is no citation. Should be removed, because it is OR.

Since most Americans probably hold a combination of the first and second options,...

This is the beginning of the most OR and POV sentences in this paragraph. Has to go.

...which correspond to theistic evolution,...

Says who? OR and should be deleted.

...this creates a difficulty.

with this POV, that sentence ends.

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.

Who decides who wants to chose what? As with the rest of this paragraph, this opinion is not sourced and thus not permissible on Wikipedia.

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

A repeat of the previous sentence. POV. Should be deleted. Northfox 13:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Northfox here, the paragraph removed here did seem to be full of OR. The points may be valid, but without a citation this is very much OR to me. That being said, I would think that a citation for these criticisms would not be difficult to find if you knew where to look. Were a citation found, the section could easily stand either as is or with modification to conform to the citation. I think the Public support section itself is somewhat problematic and walks a fine line of reporting and OR. And the Political Identification table is just floating, without any real context. Also, the spirit of this edit is a good one, but I think it requires adaptaion. WLU 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-read, re-titled and re-wrote the entire section - I don't see what the beliefs about the paranormal and whatnot were doing in the section. In my mind, based on the evolution/creationism-specific citations that were there, the section was about the public's understanding of the epistemological, methodological and paradigmatic (or whatever polysyllabic words you want to insert) understanding of both camps positions or backgrounds. There's still a large swath of text there that's commented out - I just don't see why it's there, it looked like it was there to portray the general public as scientifically illiterate or irrational, when I think it was a bit of a stretch to assume that from the evidence. It's shorter, but it seems cleaner to me, with little to no OR. Without specific links, I don't think the citations can be included in that section or even the page, since there's no actual mention of creationism or evolution in them. WLU 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More re-writing of the scientists section in question, and I removed the commented-out text completely. Please have a look, feel free to comment. WLU 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Charts

Someone should check the accuracy of the tables in this article. I'm not saying that the data is false; I'm saying the tables might be accidentally mislabeled or simply confusing. --Armaetin (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, please

"... it is also important in other countries where creationists are attempting to make inroads in the public discourse about education and research." -- Can we please NPOV-ify this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? --FOo (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the implication that creationists are the "bad guys" and are attempting to upset some existing status quo.

- "inroad": 1. A hostile invasion; a raid. 2. An advance, especially at another's expense; an encroachment. Often used in the plural: Foreign products have made inroads into the American economy. - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition online) [2]

I happen to agree that the Evolutionists are right and generally "good" and that the Creationists are wrong and by comparison "bad", but my opinion and yours aren't appropriate in the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Better? WLU (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, no, unfortunately. Look at it this way. Would Creationists object to that phrasing? IMHO NPOV means that we have to phrase things so that both Evolutionists and Creationists should say "Yeah, that's fair. That's right." -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest as an alternative? Unfortunately given the manufactured creation-evolution controversy, creationists don't have much of a leg to stand on, and push a blatantly political agenda into non-political spheres. In my opinion, the use of court challenges is an attempt to force education departments and schools to adopt a skewed, POV view of evolution. And yes, I greatly enjoyed Creationism's Trojan Horse :) All this makes it harder for me to write something that's going to be acceptable to creationists. WLU (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempted NPOV fix. [3] (Please note that this also shows text moved but not changed as red, so exaggerates my edits.)

We may want to tweak this a little, but I think it's pretty good as stands now.

I may also try some edits to other sections.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, I also had a go... I'm not saying it's good, but it's there... [4] WLU (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New survey

Evolution and Its Discontents: A Role for Scientists in Science Education -- conducted by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, covers acceptance of evolution, and a number of related issues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Eugenie C. Scott that might prove relevant

Raven – the passage from Talkorigins referring to only 700 scientists out of 480,000 is not a reference to the DI list of 700 scientists.

It is instead a reference dating from 1987 (follow the link to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ) and it refers to the approximate number of members of the Creation Research Society. A giveaway is the date, but also the statement that these 700 scientists are “creation scientists”, not ID supporters (and I know that IDCs are just a subset of CS, but that’s not the point here.)

That 480,000 scientists statistic also dates from 1987, and is doubtless too low by probably 20% (just a guess) since there has been such a proliferation of scientists in the last 20 years. But I don’t know the source of that 480,000, either, since it is a second hand reference to a Newsweek article.

Wicked Lad notes the statement attested to by the signers of the DI statement, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” He points out that this is certainly a mild statement.

As discussed by Skip Evans (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7306_pr8… ) (scroll down to “Signatories”) the DI “Dissent from Darwinism” project deviously conflates legitimate skepticism over the power of natural selection – an evolutionary mechanism that in fact is not the only mechanism affecting evolution, though extraordinarily important in producing adaptations – with doubts over whether or not living things have common ancestors. Although signers of the DI statement attested only to skepticism as to the importance of the mechanism of natural selection, the project as a whole is used as evidence of rejection of the “big idea” of evolution, common ancestry.

Pretty underhanded, but it works well, since the public automatically equates the word “Darwinism” with evolution, so “A Scientific Dissent to Darwinism” is translated by the public as “scientists are doubting evolution”.

Also note that Skip received replies from a handful of signatories (before – we assume! – the DI told them not to reply to us!) that yes, in fact, they accepted common ancestry, but just were a little suspicious about the power of natural selection.

Also note Skip’s analysis of the first 103 signatories. “The list consists of 41 biologists (over half of whom are biochemists), 16 chemists, 4 engineers, 2 geologists/geophysicists, 8 mathematicians, 10 medical professionals, 4 social scientists, 15 from physics or astronomy, and 3 whose specialties we were unable to determine.”

It would be good, indeed, to analyze the rest of them to see if the proportion of biologists in relevant research areas remains a tiny percent of the Ph.D.s signing.

And meanwhile, Project Steve continues to attract new members.

Genie[5]

It's a blog comment, so unusable as a source. But i's links/interpretations may prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eugenie Scott has her own page, and I think it's arguable that WP:SPS supports a judicious use of the information. She's a notable critic, a huge player in the culture wars. WLU (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is usable since she is notable. However, we already have most, if not all, of that information with better sources.--Filll (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a comment appended to somebody else's blog post, which I seem to remember is considered to be per se unreliable (probably as there's often no way of determining if the comment is from who it claims to be). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek article

From main:

One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.85% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science.

The Newsweek article is dubious - according to Conservapedia, which I do not trust, 700 scientists signed a letter saying that they supported Creationism, but it is not logical to conclude that every other scientist opposes it. It certainly seems to me there could be no adequate way of determining this 700 figure - surely not all scientists were polled? Evercat (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As you would realise, if you had read Scott's comment quoted above, the 700 does not refer to signatories of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism but to membership of the Creation Research Society. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I didn't, but it's still dubious. Presumably not every scientist who supports creationism is a member? Evercat (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to me to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. As far as I can tell, we should leave it in the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly confused. This is indeed verifiable. And it is in agreement with other sources, such as the NIH article giving a 99.9% figure, and the estimates from the Discovery Institute list (which is hugely inflated by dishonesty of various kinds), and the estimates from the lists maintained by other creationist organizations. Even 99.9% appears to be an understimate and the real figure is closer to 99.995% or more. So 99.85% is perfectly believable and in fact far too generous and if anything an underestimate.--Filll (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that we all agree here (aka Wikipedia:Consensus) that this quote and cite (as removed by User:Evercat) are reasonable and should be restored to the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea he had removed it. It figures...--Filll (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Filll - I'm an atheist who reads Dawkins. But saying that because 700 scientists belong to a creationist organisation, so no other scientist supports creationism, is not logical. But if you can give a different reason for having a figure of around 99.85%, then go ahead. It is not the figure I object to, but the means by which it is arrived at.

By the way, since I don't have the Newsweek article in front of me, and can't find it on the web, it is possible that Hrafn and myself (and Eugenie Scott!) are mistaken about how the 99.85% figure was arrived at. But if we are not, I can't see how you can defend such obviously faulty logic. Evercat (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what faulty logic would that be? The article states that this was reported in Newsweek. It was. The exact wording is included here in this article with a reference. And clearly the numbers are not that different than other estimates. And your problem with this is?--Filll (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The faulty logic of going from 700 members of a creationist group to nobody else being creationists. You think this is sound logic? Evercat (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Um ok. First, I am sure you have heard the expression, "Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth". This statistic comes out of a WP:RS publication and it is WP:V. So we use it.

Next, you or I do not know if the conjecture above is realistic. Neither does Eugenie Scott, who might or might not have posted that conjecture. My understanding is that the creationist society she is referring to had a membership of over 2000 or so at the time, so I do not put much stock in that "guess".

However, lets suppose that the guess is correct and examine it a bit. Not all members of a creationist organization or subscribers to their newsletter are necessarily creationists. For example, supporters of evolution might subscribe for laughs, or to chart the progress of the controversy. As a perfect example, at least 2 or more of the signatories of the Discovery Institute list are not creationists and have said so publicly. See the link above and the article A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Next, typically only a fraction of the signatories of these lists or members of these groups are scientists (most are philosophers or English professors or historians or engineers), let alone scientists in the relevant field, let alone US citizens. Typically about 10-20% are scientists in the relevant fields, and 5% are scientists in the relevant fields and US citizens.

Of course, there might be a lot of secret creationists that are hard to find, and never would admit it on a survey or join an organization. However, no one can ferret them out and get a reasonable guess at how many there are, right? But creationism is antithetical to the actual practice of the science involved; you would have to violate your beliefs every day if you worked in radioactive dating or dendochronology, for example. So I doubt it.

Some like to count those who are subscribers to theistic evolution to bolster the numbers of creationists. However, the dispute with creationists has nothing to do with God, or why evolution exists; as some have said, "science is about how, not why". What possible conflict with science is there with someone who does not dispute any of the processes or mechanisms or interpretations of science?

So maybe you should reexamine your reasoning. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

By showing how dubious the numbers are (in your 3rd and 4th paragraphs, above) and how difficult it is to go from such membership to actual beliefs, you've only strengthened my case that this is not a useful guide to what percentage of relevant scientists are creationists.

I agree that theistic evolution is not creationism.

In your 2nd paragraph, I'm not sure if you're trying to argue that actually we don't know how the "700 believers" in Newsweek was arrived at. But this would certainly be a valid point, which again undermines it as a source. It doesn't give its methodology.

"Of course, there might be a lot of secret creationists that are hard to find, and never would admit it on a survey or join an organization."

I would be perfectly happy with a survey. What I am not happy with is the claim that one would naturally expect all scientists who are creationists to belong to one specific creationist organisation (or indeed, any creationist organisation). I bet most scientists don't belong to some organisation set up to promote the theory of evolution either, but that doesn't mean they reject evolution. You just can't make the inference from "x number of members in organisation y" to "x number of people in the country who agree with organisation y's beliefs". Evercat (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused. I never claimed that all scientists who are creationists belong to one organization. Neither does Wikipedia. Neither does Eugenie Scott. As far as we know, neither does Newsweek, right? We do not know how they got their numbers. All we know is they reported numbers.

Same with the NIH. We do not know where Alters got his numbers.

Same with the Gallup poll showing 5% of all scientists are creationists. What sort of scientists were surveyed? A lot of these jokers include engineers and medical doctors and mathematicians and philosophers etc as "scientists" and so this sort of estimate is flaky without more information. However, it is what we have, so we report it. If you want to do the hard work and find us more information, or other surveys, please do so. Otherwise, this hard work we have to do ourselves.

Same with the Discovery Institute List. Or the AiG list. Or the CMI list. Or a good half dozen other lists (although those are not surveys). All this is pretty flaky. But it is all that we have. Until we find someone willing to spend 10s of millions of dollars, if not more, to survey every single scientist working as a biologist or a geologist in the US, or a very large sample of them, and survey similar fractions of biologists and geologists in foreign countries, and devise some method to ferret out "secret creationists", as well as "secret evolutionists" (people who pretend to be creationists but really accept evolution, which the Discovery Institute Dissent list is laced with, apparently), then we will have lousy numbers. That is how it is. We report what we know, since WP is about verifiability, not truth. And we leave it up to the readers to do more original research. For Wikipedia to do more is forbidden by its rules on WP:OR.

Do you understand?--Filll (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that all scientists who are creationists belong to one organization.

Great.

As far as we know, neither does Newsweek, right? We do not know how they got their numbers.

This is exactly the problem. At the very least, the text should mention this fact.

With regard to Verifiability, see my response to Writtenonsand at User_talk:Writtenonsand. Evercat (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Newsweek is a reliable source for this relatively minor comment. If you find an equally reliable source disputing it, you can discuss whether we should include it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get a hold of this Newsweek article, which I believe is at a library near me. Tomorrow, hopefully. Maybe it will make everything clear. Evercat (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy. I copied out the quote word for word. A creationist editor I was working with did the same. We checked it and put it into Wikipedia exactly as it is in Newsweek. Note that anything you want to put in must be in a reliable source and verifiable. --Filll (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I now have a photocopy of the article, and have corrected a couple of minor errors in the quote given (though is it possible I have some sort of international edition which differs from the U.S. version?) I have confirmed that it doesn't give its methodology, and without a credible source questioning it, I am therefore giving up.

I would however prefer it if the sentence in question was replaced with:

One 1987 estimate found that less than 0.15% of 480,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported creation science.

Simply because that's what the article says. It doesn't say they support evolution, and today someone might reject creation science (which is essentially young-earth creationism) but believe in "intelligent design" which is neither the mainstream theory of evolution nor creation science (which the article defines as "the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared abruptly") To see the distinction, note that ID people might say that complex life did not evolve and it did not appear abruptly. Evercat (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the original title is correct. The article does not say anything about "academic credentials". This is WP:OR and does not belong in the article. I think your version is different than what was in the United States version. I copied the text exactly as it appears in the article. The US article says nothing about 0.15%. Something else strange is that intelligent design did not exist in 1987 so no one could have defined it. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)