Talk:Many current scientists reject evolution

From EvoWiki

Regarding - 1. Even if creationists never stated who the current creationist scientists are, that wouldn't invalidate the argument. The backing for an argument is important but not all-important. What is more important is establishing whether the argument is true. In any event, this author apparently concedes that at least sometimes, even if rarely, they do give a list. One can be found at http://creationwiki.org/Historical_creationist_scientists.

2. I got the impression the claims being commented on were generic, not actual quotes. Where does it say the statement was made by a creationist? The statement can be made by an evolutionist, a creationist, or someone who is neither (like a writer comparing the two schools of thought.

3. The earth revolving around the sun is a proven and verifiable fact. Many of the theories of evolution aren't. In fact, evolutionists themselves aren't in agreement with one another.

4. Strawman. The statement isn't about the prevailing attitude towards evolution, or even about the proportion of scientists. It's about affirming that creationists are not alone, and that scientists who reject evolution are not isolated - like one in the northern hemisphere and one on the moon.

5. No problem here.

6. This sounds like you, Lehigh University and "many" would approve of Michael Behe being fired for his views on evolution.

7. You should apply all of your arguments to your own statement that "Many scientists ... reject creationism as well". Oh, and by adding "as well", are you conceding that the above claim is true after all? Ruben, Nov. 9, 2007.

1. In the cases where a list is given, the list consists of non-scientists, scientists in irrelevant fields, scientists who died before Darwin was born, scientists who accept evolution and believe in God, and scientists who were quoted out of context as believing in God.

2. If you had looked up the sources given, you would have found that they use this argument - not in the same wording but in the same meaning.

3. You don't get it. The meaning of this response is: If I apply the logic used in the claim to other subjects, I arrive at wrong answers.

4. Again, you don't get it. Pointing out scientists who reject evolution (if they exist) conceals part of the truth. Given any arbitrary nonsense held by a population, you will find a few scientists who believe in it.

7. Oh, right. I'll remove the "as well", it gives a wrong impression. --tk 07:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)