Talk:Evolution/supportdraft

Untitled

The level of support for evolution is a source of controversy. It is sometimes claimed by creationists that few scientists accept evolution, and that a significant controversy about evolution exists in the scientific community.

These claims are unequivocally false. For example:

• Over 99% of all biologists in the US support evolution.
• Dozens of scientific societies representing hundreds of thousands of scientists support evolution.
• A petition in favor of evolution was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners
• In the US, the creationists have lost in court over and over, every time.

as described below in greater detail. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the most reasonable scientific theory to explain the data.

Scientific support

There is overwhelming support in the scientific community and academia for evolution. One estimate in 1987 was that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 scientists with professional credentials in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside the biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Not only do most scientists accept evolution, but there is a widespread belief in the scientific community that intelligent design (an explanatory principle closely related to creationism) is unscientific, is pseudoscience, or is junk science. 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 September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." And 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 called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies. This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point. The amicus curaie brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science.

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.

Scientific societies that have issued statements supporting evolution

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution:

USA

Alabama Academy Of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Anthropological Association (2000)
American Association For The Advancement Of Science (1923, 1972, 1982, 2002)
AAAS Commission on Science Education
American Association Of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society (2000)
American Geophysical Union
American Geophysical Union (1999)
American Institute Of Biological Sciences
American Astronomical Society
American Society Of Biological Chemists
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Psychological Association
American Physical Society
American Society Of Parasitologists
Association for Women Geoscientists (1998)
Botanical Society of America
California Academy Of Sciences
Ecological Society of America (1999)
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society Of America
Geological Society of America (2001)
Geological Society of Australia (1995)
Georgia Academy Of Science
Georgia Academy Of Science (1980, 1982)
History of Science Society
Iowa Academy Of Science (1982; 2000)
Iowa Academy Of Science, statement on pseudoscience (1986)
Kentucky Academy Of Science
Kentucky Academy Of Science (1999)
Kentucky Paleontological Society (1999)
Louisiana Academy Of Sciences
National Academy Of Sciences (1972, 1984, 1998)
National Science Board (1999)
North American Benthological Society (2001)
North Carolina Academy Of Science
North Carolina Academy Of Science (1997)
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy Of Sciences
Ohio Academy Of Science
Ohio Academy Of Science (2000)
Ohio Math and Science Coalition (2002)
Oklahoma Academy Of Sciences
The Paleontological Society
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Society For Amateur Scientists
Society For Integrative and Comparative Biology (2001)
Society For The Study Of Evolution
Society Of Systematic Biologists (2001)
Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology (1986, 1994)
Southern Anthropological Society
Virginia Academy Of Science (1981)
West Virginia Academy Of Science

Outside of the USA

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
68. The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)
69. Academy Of Science Of The Royal Society Of Canada
70. Australian Academy of Science

Statements from educational organizations supporting evolution

There are many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution:

American Association of Physics Teachers (1982, 2005)
American Association of University Professors
American Association of University Women
Arkansas Science Teachers Association
Association of College and University Biology Educators (1999, 2000)
Association of Pennsylvania State College And University Biologists
Authors of Biology Texts (1999, updated 2003)
The BSCS Position on the Teaching of Biology
The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1995): Position on the Teaching
Of Evolution for Voices for Evolution
California Science Teachers Association
California State Board of Education (1989)
Empire State Association of Two Year Community Biologists (1998)
Iowa Department of Public Instruction
Iowa Council of Science Supervisors
Maryland Association of Science Teachers
Michigan Science Teachers Association
Michigan Science Teachers Association (2003, 2005)
National Association of Biology Teachers (1980, 2000)
National Association of Biology Teachers: Scientific Integrity
National Association of Biology Teachers: The Teaching of Evolution
National Conference on Teaching Evolution (2000)
National Council for the Social Studies
National Education Association
National Science Supervisors Association
National Science Teachers Association (1973, 1982, 1985, 1997, 2003)
New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education
New York State Science Supervisors Association
North Carolina Science Teachers Association
North Carolina Math and Science Education Network
Oklahoma Science Teachers Association
Oklahoma State University Department of Zoology (2006)
Science Museum of Minnesota (1995)
Science Teachers Association of New York State (1980)
Syracuse Parent-Teacher Association
University of Alabama at Huntsville Faculty Senate
University of California Academic Council of the Academic Senate
University System of Georgia Biology Academic Advisory Committee (2003)
University of New Mexico History Department
The University of Queensland (Australia) Board of the Faculty of Science
Utah Science Teachers Association
Utah State Board of Education
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

72 US Nobel Prize winners supporting evolution

U.S. Nobel laureates in physics

• S. Chandrasekhar & William A. Fowler 1983 Invest. concerning stellar evolution
  
• Kenneth G. Wilson 1982 Theory of phase transitions
  
• Nicolaas Bloembergen 1981 Adv. in tech. appl. of lasers for the study of matter
  
• Val L. Fitch 1980 Showing "charge-parity" and time symmetry could be violated
  
• Sheldon Lee Glashow & Steven Weinberg 1979 Link between electromagnetism and the weak force of radioactive decay
  
• Arno A. Penzias & Robert W. Wilson 1978 Discovery of microwave radiation from the Big Bang
  
• Burton Richter & Samuel C. C. Ting 1976 Parallel discovery of subatomic particle that established the existence of charm
  
• Leo Esaki & Ivar Giaever 1973 Theories on superconductors & semiconductors important to microelectronics
  
• John Bardeen, Leon N. Cooper & J. Robert Schrieffer 1972 Theory of superconductivity without electrical resistance at temperature of absolute zero
  
• Murray Gell-Mann 1969 Classification of elementary particles
  
• Luis W. Alvarez 1968 Discovery of "resonance" particles
  
• Hans A. Bethe 1967 Study of energy production of stars
  
• Charles H. Townes 1964 Development of maser and laser principles in quantum mechanics
  
• Robert Hofstadter 1961 Hofstadter's measure of nucleons
  
• Donald A. Glaser 1960 Bubble chamber for subatomic study
  
• Emilio Segre 1959 Demonstration of the existence of the antiproton
  
• Chen Ning Yang 1957 Discovery of violations of law of conservation of parity
  
• John Bardeen 1956 Studies on semiconductors and invention of electronic transistor
  
• Polykarp Kusch 1955 Magnetic momentum of electron
  
• Willis E. Lamb, Jr. 1955 Measurement of hydrogen spectrum
  
• Edward M. Purcell 1952 Measurement of magnetic moment of neutron
  
• Isadore I. Rabi 1944 Magnetic properties of molecular beams
  
• Carl D. Anderson 1936 Discovery of the positron
  

US Nobel laureates in chemistry

• Bruce Merrifield 1984 Chemical synthesis on solid supports
  
• Henry Taube 1983 New discoveries in basic mechanism of chemical reactions
  
• Roald Hoffman 1981 Appl. of laws of quantum mechanics to chemical reactions
  
• Paul Berg 1980 Development of recombinant DNA
  
• Walter Gilbert 1980 Development of methods to map the structure of DNA
  
• Herbert C. Brown 1979 Study of boron-containing organic compounds
  
• William Lipscomb 1976 Study of bonding in boranes
  
• Christian B. Anfinsen 1972 Protein structure and function
  
• Robert S. Mulliken 1966 Study of atomic bonds in molecules
  
• Melvin Calvin 1961 Work in chemistry of photosynthesis
  
• Linus Pauling 1954 Work on chemical bonds
  
• Glenn T. Seaborg 1951 Disc. of plutonium and research on transuranium elements
  
• John H. Northrop 1946 Crystallization of enzymes
  

US Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine

• Michael S. Brown & Joseph L. Goldstein 1985 Discovery of receptors that control body cholesterol
  
• Barbara McClintock 1983 Discovery of mobile genes in chromosomes of corn
  
• David H. Hubel & Roger Sperry 1981 Studies on the organization and local functions of brain areas
  
• George D. Snell 1980 Discovery of the role of antigens in organ transplants
  
• Allan Cormack 1979 Invention of computerized axial tomography (CAT scan)
  
• Daniel Nathans & 1978 Discovery and use of restriction enzymes for DNA
  
• Roger Guillemin 1977 Discovery and molecular structures of brain hormones
  
• Rosalyn Yalow 1977 Development of radioimmunoassays of peptide hormones
  
• David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco & Howard M. Temin 1975 Discovery of reverse transcriptase and work with the interaction between viruses and host cells
  
• George E. Palade 1974 Analysis of structure, chemistry and function of cell organelles
  
• Julius Axelrod 1970 Discoveries in the chemical transmission of nerve impulses
  
• Salvador E. Luria 1969 Discoveries in the workings and reproduction of viruses
  
• Robert W. Holley, H. Gobind Khorana & Marshall Nirenberg 1968 Understanding and deciphering the genetic code that determines cell function
  
• Charles B. Huggins 1966 Research on causes and treatment of cancer
  
• Konrad Bloch 1964 Work on cholesterol and fatty acid metabolism
  
• Francis Crick & James D. Watson 1962 Determination of molecular structure of DNA
  
• Arthur Kornberg & Severo Ochoa 1959 Artificial production of nucleic acids with enzymes
  
• Andre Cournand 1956 Use of catheter for study of the interior of the heart and circulatory system
  
• Frederick Robbins & Thomas H. Weller 1954 Discovery of a method of cultivating viruses in tissue culture
  

Selected court rulings

Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts:

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

Religious organizations that support evolution

These are several religious organizations that have issued statements in support of evolution:
American Jewish Congress
American Scientific Affiliation (a group of evangelicals trained in science)
Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002)
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
The Lutheran World Federation
Roman Catholic Church (1981; 1996)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1977; 1982)
United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
United Methodist Church
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982; 1983)

In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has issued statements in favor of evolution. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." 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.

Applications in medicine and other areas

Evolution is not just part of science, but is being put to use in medicine and genetics and industry. Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products. They do this because they have a profit motive, and the motive encourages them to use the take a hardline, verifiable approach to their research and development efforts. There is no luxury of time and effort to be wasted on ideas that do not have substantial scientific support behind them.

Because of this, 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 points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.

Public support

Group	Young Earth Creationism	Belief in God-guided Evolution	Belief in Evolution without God
Public	44%	39%	10%
Scientists	5%	40%	55%

Creationists sometimes suggest 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.

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 2006 Gallup poll, about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48 to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 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. (See the chart)

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 views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.

However, it should be noted that just because the public supports something, it does not necessarily mean it is true. A study by Miller et al (1997) felt fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy.A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list, however.

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 fairly consistent results. The Farha-Steward poll results are followed by the Gallup results in parentheses.

Percentage of Americans who believe in the following

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 56 (54)
Belief in ESP: 28 (50)
Haunted houses: 40 (42)
Demonic possession: 40 (41)
Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 39 (38)
Telepathy: 24 (36)
Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 17 (33)
Clairvoyance and prophecy: 24 (32)
Communication with the dead: 16 (28)
Astrology: 17 (28)
Witches: 26 (26)
Reincarnation: 14 (25)

Channeling: 10 (15)

Percentage of Americans who marked "not sure" in these categories

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 26 (19)
Belief in ESP: 39 (20)
Haunted houses: 25 (16)
Demonic possession: 28 (16)
Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 27 (17)
Telepathy: 34 (26)
Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 34 (27)
Clairvoyance and prophecy: 33 (23)
Communication with the dead: 29 (26)
Astrology: 26 (18)
Witches: 19(15)
Reincarnation: 28 (20)

Channeling: 29 (21)

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 had 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 NSF 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 ESP and 30% thought that UFOs were "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations."

Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are. After all, most of the creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, even among the most fervert American Christians, the 15% that are evangelical protestants, only 47.8% believe it is literally true, and 6.5% believe it 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 creationist principles whole-heartedly.

From these results, it is not possible to put much credence in the creationist claim that public levels of belief correspond to more certainty.

Project Steve

The National Center for Science Education has produced a light-hearted petition in supported of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It was meant as a parody of the lists of alleged "scientists" that supposedly support creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. Some prominent creationist organizations that have produced these kinds of lists include:

• Discovery Institute
• Institute for Creation Research
• Answers in Genesis, a list of scientists that support creationism on the Answers in Genesis website.
• Creation Ministries International

According to the United States Census, about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve.

Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endore the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of the end of 2006, over 770 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 77,000 scientists would have signed. This compares with the Discovery Institute's claim to have over 600 scientists that support intelligent design as of the end of June, 2006.

---

Comments

Well orangemarlin, I guess I misjudged the deletion process again here. I did not think that this would be so poorly received by the mainstream. This reminds me of an even worse case than the "theory vs. fact" discussions. Wow. So here we have the controversy article, which is basically a mess as far as I can tell with more than one theme in it. Just look at that worthless philosophy of science stuff? What value is that to anyone but a philosopher? This is a general purpose encyclopedia ? Please... And the evolution article, which has those gawdawful sections on the controversy in a science article. At least finally the lead on evolution is starting to look actualy readable. Here are things I am thinking of:

1. rewrite this and retitle it to be far more neutral, describing the creationist side far more.
2. the objections draft might be incorporated into an attempt to make a legitimate fork of the controversy article. I would propose that under the guise of shortening the article and rewriting it, the creationism-evolution controversy ARGUMENTS be separated out. Then we add the objections to it. We create a draft page off of the creationism-evolution controversy article and before publishing, we open the doors and let them throw stones for a few weeks. When people feel finally semi comfortable (hopefully), then we propose publishing it. This article would be a natural fork off that.
3. by hitting people blind with this, they were not happy.
4. The impression I have is that few people appreciate how much material on this topic there is, and how poorly presented what they have at the moment is. My experience with the talk and fact article was proof of that.
5. The title was bad. It was too provocative.

Comments?--Filll 15:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was actually shocked by the negative response. I think you should take various sections and incorporate them into the main articles of Evolution, Creation Controversy, etc. Orangemarlin 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You and me both. I guess I am still a greenhorn here, and there are lots of things about this culture that I do not understand very well. To me, I thought it was pretty obvious. You have 95+% support in science. Is it biased to say the truth? You have heavy support in mainstream religion. It is biased to say the truth? You have some report in corporations. It is based to say that? You have had great success in the courts. It is biased to report that? The public support is mixed. I give some reasons why that might be with references. That is biased? I thought I was just reviewing the available levels of support in different domains by different groups. And I was caught off guard by this. So you live and learn.

Here is another approach: Well my impression was that this was a review article, or that was its intent, but I can see the difficulty. I suggest that this material, with more supporting material, be placed under a different theme. For example, Creationism-evolution controversy measures or Measuring opinions on creationism or Measuring opinions on evolution, and then describing the different methods that have been used to gauge the level of support in different communities (polling, surveys, petitions, declarations of support by different organizations {religious, scientific, academic, government, educational, corporate, etc.}, court cases, laws, political speeches, and so on) and the results of these. Each side has some in their favor and some not:

• polls on biologists-E dominates
• polls on scientists-E still dominates but not as much
• polls on the public-C dominates, but more ambiguous than at 1st glance
• petitions-E dominates, but this is not independent of polls
• declarations of support by scientific org-E dominates, again not indep.
• declarations of support by academic, educ. orgs-E
• declarations of support by corporations-surprisingly weak for E
• declarations of support by politicians-C dominates
• declarations of support by evang. religious-C dominates
• declaration of support by mainstream religious-E dominates
• court cases-E dominates, but it is far more ambiguous than people realize; there are huge loopholes in the court decisions
• laws-E has slight edge, but C is making progress

Additional note: Although C has about half of the public behind it, with E capturing maybe another 35% in a religious version of E, and 15% or so believe in an areligious version of E, a large fraction of the population that favors a religious version of E is not averse to including C in schools and passing legislation favoring C, or at least not discriminating against C, etc. So although the support might be somewhat soft for C in some ways, in other ways the dominance of C is greater since most of the non-C public is amenable to allowing C in science and in schools etc.

Comments?--Filll 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)