Causes of Rejecting Scientific Consensus

[Jose Fly]

In another thread I expressed that I don't really understand many of the behaviors I frequently see from creationists. One of those behaviors is how they seem to not only think themselves experts in a wide variety of scientific fields, they seem to believe that their knowledge and expertise is superior to the actual professionals in those fields. Thus, we often see them attempt to debate against the work of professionals by mere assertion (IOW, "because I say so").

In that earlier thread, several folks (correctly) noted that such behavior can be explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. While I agree that it explains what they're doing, it still doesn't really explain why they do it or how they are seemingly oblivious to it.

The other day I came across this article....

Overconfidence and Opposition to Scientific Consensus

The recent study – Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues, by Nicholas Light et al, is not surprising but is reassuringly solid in its outcome. The researchers compared peoples objective knowledge about various controversial topics (their knowledge of objective facts), with their subjective knowledge (assessment of their own knowledge) and opposition to consensus views. They found a robust effect in which opposition increased as the gap between objective and subjective knowledge increased (see graphs above the fold).

This may remind you of Dunning Kruger – the less people know the more they overestimate their knowledge (although subjective knowledge still decreases, just not as fast as objective knowledge). This is more of a super DK, those who know the least think they know the most. This has been found previously with specific topics – safety of GM food, genetic manipulation, and vaccines and autism. In addition to the super DK effect, this study shows that is correlates well with opposition to scientific consensus.

This study does not fully establish what causes such opposition, just correlates it with a dramatic lack of humility, lack of knowledge, and overestimation of one’s knowledge. There are studies and speculation trying to discern the ultimate causes of this pattern, and they are likely different for different issues. The classic explanation is the knowledge deficit model, that this pattern emerges as a result of lack of objective knowledge. But his model is mostly not true for most topics, although knowledge is still important and can even be dominant with some issues, like GM food. There is also the “cultural cognition” model, which posits that people hold beliefs in line with their culture (including political, social, and religious subcultures). This also is highly relevant for some issues more than others, like rejection of evolutionary science.

Other factors that have been implicated include cognitive style, with intuitive thinkers being more likely to fall into this opposition pattern than analytical thinkers. Intuitive thinking also correlates with another variable, conspiracy thinking, that also correlates with the rejection of consensus. Conspiracy thinking seems to occur in two flavors. There is opportunistic conspiracy thinking in which it seems to be not the driver of the false belief but a reinforcer. But there are also dedicated conspiracy theorists, who will accept any conspiracy, for which conspiracy thinking appears to be the driver.

So to put this in context of my question (why do some exhibit the D-K Effect), the research described in this article indicates that it's due to a combination of factors: lack of humility, one's cultural environment, intuitive-type thinking, conspiracy thinking

The topic for debate: Do you agree with that? Do you see this "super D-K" applying to some of the discussions/debates in this forum? Do you think there are other factors the researchers may have missed?

For me, these explanations line up quite well with the behaviors I commonly notice among creationists, most notably the lack of humility. IMO, that explains why creationists are so prone to argue via empty assertion. They think so highly of themselves, they figure "because I say so" is a valid form of argumentation and don't seem to really understand why the rest of us don't.

[Jose Fly]

I've seen EarthScienceGuy make a few good points. I actually called him on the fish-that-clone-themselves thing because I understood the entirety of what he posted, but I also have to admit that he made a good argument.

He's just parroting an old argument from John Sanford and creation.com. He and I went around and around about that years ago in another forum and it was pretty hilarious. Basically, years ago a scientist made a model that showed if slightly deleterious mutations accumulated at a certain rate, humans should have died out long ago. Obviously we're still here, so the scientist naturally figured his model must be missing something, which he and others figured out via later research.

ESG ignored and/or waved away all the subsequent papers and kept harping on the original in a transparently dishonest manner.

It's a bad way to do science, compared to other ways of doing science that purposely stuff up your poop end and blind you out of your eaty end so you know you're not just pooping out your own bias and eating it back up, and if what you thought was true ends up on your plate, it happened organically. This may be a bad and disgusting metaphor but I like it. Now, that's not to say you can't gain understanding from working backwards. You can. It's just unsanitary. In other words, it might be tainted, and conclusions that are sanitary, because you washed your hands every time you might have touched bias, are vastly preferred.

Saying working backwards is bad is like saying abductive reasoning is bad. It's bad compared to deductive reasoning, but it's not worthless or somehow less than worthless, meaning it was less likely the conclusion rather than the null hypothesis was true.

I've never seen it go well when a scientist starts with their conclusion. I've actually seen it effectively destroy some people's careers and reputations.

Not unless trust is the default. Saying that some parts of the economy are scammy therefore all of them are at least suspect is perfectly logical unless I need rock solid evidence to say it's okay not to trust somebody. The only reason I even presented evidence that some parts are famously scammy is to refute the potential claim that everyone is honest. Not to prove other parts are scammy, but I don't have to prove they are definitely scammy to say it's okay not to trust them. Motivation + lack of oversight = justified suspicion.

But there are instances where fallacy of composition would be... not a fallacy. For example, if one part of the bucket leaks, the whole thing is unsound. If one premise in an argument is suspect, the whole argument is. I won't actually go so far as to rant that if the government can't keep scammers in check, then the whole economy is busted. That's not my claim. Some areas seem less or not affected. But rotted wood in only some places does still make for a leaky roof.

But again, it's impossible to never trust anyone or anything, unless you live a solitary, isolated, and entirely self-sufficient lifestyle. For example, later today I have to go to the pharmacy and pick up a prescription for my mom. I'm not going to jump behind the counter and make sure the pharmacist actually puts the right meds in the bottle, nor am I going to chemically analyze the meds to make sure they are what they're supposed to be.

So to reiterate my point, we all have to trust others in various aspects of our lives. Conversely, we all have areas in our lives where we don't need to trust anyone else. As I said, it's not a simplistic binary situation.

Honestly I would rather the world be populated with more religiosos who inherently doubt and mistrust experts even if they don't match their knowledge or understanding, and if I were God I would use them to replace all the lazy fools who know something smells fishy but throw up their hands and just say, eh, those are the experts, nothing I can say. There are a lot of reasons religious people annoy me, and this world would bother me more, but I think we'd have a fairer world and fewer scammers - fewer people getting away with using their expertise to scam.

Not me. The religiosos that I know who distrust experts don't do so out of skepticism but do so mostly out of tribalism and emotional adherence to religious beliefs.

Because science is the default. If science was suppressed and religion was dominant, science could be the better method and most of the usefulness would still be produced by the inferior method.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know.

Because I don't have a personal Jiminy Cricket, and they're demanding I use it as a bloody microscope and look at the world through that lens. Can't do that if I don't have one.

You lost me.

Trust is earned. If science gives you good products, useful insight and truth, as it long has, feel free to trust it regardless of whether I say the industry have motivation to deceive. If science starts giving you phones that get throttled when they age to 6 months so you go and buy a new one, feel free to not. If you've subscribed to Scientific American for 10 years and found it worth the money, and/or found that on the edge of new discovery stands usefulness or at least something interesting that expands your understanding, trust, go ahead.

Again, I see binary, black/white thinking in what you say. "Science makes suspect phones, therefore I can't trust anything from science".

[Purple Knight]

I've seen EarthScienceGuy make a few good points. I actually called him on the fish-that-clone-themselves thing because I understood the entirety of what he posted, but I also have to admit that he made a good argument.

He's just parroting an old argument from John Sanford and creation.com. He and I went around and around about that years ago in another forum and it was pretty hilarious. Basically, years ago a scientist made a model that showed if slightly deleterious mutations accumulated at a certain rate, humans should have died out long ago. Obviously we're still here, so the scientist naturally figured his model must be missing something, which he and others figured out via later research.

ESG ignored and/or waved away all the subsequent papers and kept harping on the original in a transparently dishonest manner.

I looked into it and as far as I saw it still applies to the mollies (unless how they reproduce is misunderstood, which I honestly think is the case) because they don't have recombination and can't lose a detriment that gets bottlenecked in or trade benefits between lines. This is an example of working backwards from the answer being a decent idea. The answer we work backwards from is that humanity didn't die out, so a model that predicts that we should have is wrong. Now we figure out why we get that answer, and gain understanding.

But again, it's impossible to never trust anyone or anything, unless you live a solitary, isolated, and entirely self-sufficient lifestyle. For example, later today I have to go to the pharmacy and pick up a prescription for my mom. I'm not going to jump behind the counter and make sure the pharmacist actually puts the right meds in the bottle, nor am I going to chemically analyze the meds to make sure they are what they're supposed to be.

If you've never gotten poison or the wrong meds before and you've done this a lot, I don't see the problem. It fits neatly into my view which is that trust is earned. As a rule though, I don't use medicine. I also get phenomenally killer headaches. I noticed my spouse using ibuprofen and she didn't die. So I did my research and started by taking 1/4 dose. It helped and I didn't die. Now I take half a dose, and only when I'd be bedridden otherwise.

The religiosos that I know who distrust experts don't do so out of skepticism but do so mostly out of tribalism and emotional adherence to religious beliefs.

Well, their beliefs protect them and organise their community. I would really like to think humanity can move past the tribal stage but I'm not convinced. I see the ship sinking and them clinging to a floaty made of lies. Yeah, it's lies... but... those lies happen to float. 2000 years and Christians have consistent reproductive success. Trust has been earned.

Because science is the default. If science was suppressed and religion was dominant, science could be the better method and most of the usefulness would still be produced by the inferior method.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know.

There was a point in human history where religion was dominant and science was seen as a part of that, and of course in that framework, "God" "revealed" most of the truths and guided most of the discoveries.

Because I don't have a personal Jiminy Cricket, and they're demanding I use it as a bloody microscope and look at the world through that lens. Can't do that if I don't have one.

You lost me.

The way I imagine a modern religious world is that knowledge and discovery are guided by revelation. In other words, moral premises are what we lay down as a foundation to understand nature and the world around us. In just the way we think in our world that an apparently nonsense behaviour of some animal must actually be an advantage, somehow, in some way... in the religious world, it would be morality instead. The cheetah slaughters the gazelle, an apparently immoral behaviour, for a hidden moral reason, for example, so that the gazelles do not become overpopulated. You introspect, discover the moral reason, and then perhaps test it. In this world I can't do science because the first step is difficult for me without a conscience.

Again, I see binary, black/white thinking in what you say. "Science makes suspect phones, therefore I can't trust anything from science".

That's not quite how I meant it. I meant that if you don't get many rotten scams, and feel that science generally improves your life, that actually is a good reason to trust, because trust has been earned. But if you feel that it generally makes your life worse, perhaps then you lack that reason. 20 years ago I would have said it was no contest. The only thing I could have thought of then was that the preservatives in most food are ever-so-slightly carcinogenic. Now it seems every discovery is only there to provide some product to replace a human so it can put someone out of a job, then break, grinding everything to a halt, until it's fixed or replaced at greater expense than it would have been to just hire a person in the first place.

[Jose Fly]

I've seen EarthScienceGuy make a few good points. I actually called him on the fish-that-clone-themselves thing because I understood the entirety of what he posted, but I also have to admit that he made a good argument.

He's just parroting an old argument from John Sanford and creation.com. He and I went around and around about that years ago in another forum and it was pretty hilarious. Basically, years ago a scientist made a model that showed if slightly deleterious mutations accumulated at a certain rate, humans should have died out long ago. Obviously we're still here, so the scientist naturally figured his model must be missing something, which he and others figured out via later research.

ESG ignored and/or waved away all the subsequent papers and kept harping on the original in a transparently dishonest manner.

I looked into it and as far as I saw it still applies to the mollies (unless how they reproduce is misunderstood, which I honestly think is the case) because they don't have recombination and can't lose a detriment that gets bottlenecked in or trade benefits between lines. This is an example of working backwards from the answer being a decent idea. The answer we work backwards from is that humanity didn't die out, so a model that predicts that we should have is wrong. Now we figure out why we get that answer, and gain understanding.

But again, it's impossible to never trust anyone or anything, unless you live a solitary, isolated, and entirely self-sufficient lifestyle. For example, later today I have to go to the pharmacy and pick up a prescription for my mom. I'm not going to jump behind the counter and make sure the pharmacist actually puts the right meds in the bottle, nor am I going to chemically analyze the meds to make sure they are what they're supposed to be.

If you've never gotten poison or the wrong meds before and you've done this a lot, I don't see the problem. It fits neatly into my view which is that trust is earned. As a rule though, I don't use medicine. I also get phenomenally killer headaches. I noticed my spouse using ibuprofen and she didn't die. So I did my research and started by taking 1/4 dose. It helped and I didn't die. Now I take half a dose, and only when I'd be bedridden otherwise.

The religiosos that I know who distrust experts don't do so out of skepticism but do so mostly out of tribalism and emotional adherence to religious beliefs.

Well, their beliefs protect them and organise their community. I would really like to think humanity can move past the tribal stage but I'm not convinced. I see the ship sinking and them clinging to a floaty made of lies. Yeah, it's lies... but... those lies happen to float. 2000 years and Christians have consistent reproductive success. Trust has been earned.

Because science is the default. If science was suppressed and religion was dominant, science could be the better method and most of the usefulness would still be produced by the inferior method.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know.

There was a point in human history where religion was dominant and science was seen as a part of that, and of course in that framework, "God" "revealed" most of the truths and guided most of the discoveries.

Because I don't have a personal Jiminy Cricket, and they're demanding I use it as a bloody microscope and look at the world through that lens. Can't do that if I don't have one.

You lost me.

The way I imagine a modern religious world is that knowledge and discovery are guided by revelation. In other words, moral premises are what we lay down as a foundation to understand nature and the world around us. In just the way we think in our world that an apparently nonsense behaviour of some animal must actually be an advantage, somehow, in some way... in the religious world, it would be morality instead. The cheetah slaughters the gazelle, an apparently immoral behaviour, for a hidden moral reason, for example, so that the gazelles do not become overpopulated. You introspect, discover the moral reason, and then perhaps test it. In this world I can't do science because the first step is difficult for me without a conscience.

Again, I see binary, black/white thinking in what you say. "Science makes suspect phones, therefore I can't trust anything from science".

That's not quite how I meant it. I meant that if you don't get many rotten scams, and feel that science generally improves your life, that actually is a good reason to trust, because trust has been earned. But if you feel that it generally makes your life worse, perhaps then you lack that reason. 20 years ago I would have said it was no contest. The only thing I could have thought of then was that the preservatives in most food are ever-so-slightly carcinogenic. Now it seems every discovery is only there to provide some product to replace a human so it can put someone out of a job, then break, grinding everything to a halt, until it's fixed or replaced at greater expense than it would have been to just hire a person in the first place.

I gotta be honest here....I'm not even sure what the point of this conversation is anymore, which is causing my interest in it to wane. I suppose if you want to take a general "don't trust anyone" approach to life, that's your prerogative. Like I said, I tend to take a more nuanced approach that's served me well over my lifetime.

I wish you good luck and happy times.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In another thread I expressed that I don't really understand many of the behaviors I frequently see from creationists.

That's cool, because guess what? Most of us creationists don't really understand many of the behaviors that we frequently see from atheists/naturalists.

So we are even.

One of those behaviors is how they seem to not only think themselves experts in a wide variety of scientific fields

Hmm. Do creationists think of themselves as being more experts in the fields of science than atheists? In my experience, no.

Not only that, but it almost seem as if atheists have a religious experience once they accept the atheistic worldview.

It almost seem as if, once a person accepts atheism, that they magically gain this mysterious knowledge and insight on all things related to science, ESPECIALLY biology and cosmology.

This would be like a naturalistic "holy spirit" that sweeps over them once they profess atheism.

Now they are bonified experts on evolution and cosmology.

Second, you are insinuating in your statement that just because a person is a creationist that the person cannot (or is not) educated in science...and not only that, but you are insinuating that just because a person is a creationist that the atheist is automatically is superior in knowledge than the creationist.

That is why your statement is so one-sided against the creationist, but there is nothing said in question of the knowledge of the atheist.

SMH.

, they seem to believe that their knowledge and expertise is superior to the actual professionals in those fields. Thus, we often see them attempt to debate against the work of professionals by mere assertion (IOW, "because I say so").

Um, no. The experts that we (creationists) appeal to, are also professionals in the field.

Atheists have there "go to" guys, and so do we.

Philosophy: We can appeal to Alvin Plantiga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, to name a few.

Evolution/Aiogenesis: Kent Hovind, Kevin Ham, Stephen Meyers, Michael Behe, Johnathan Wells, William Dembski.

Cosmology: Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig (im sure there is more, but those are my go-to guys).

All of those guys are professionals, who have the same fancy pancy degrees that the atheists go-to guys have. They just reach radically different conclusions and there lies the debate.

In that earlier thread, several folks (correctly) noted that such behavior can be explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. While I agree that it explains what they're doing, it still doesn't really explain why they do it or how they are seemingly oblivious to it.

Sooo, question; are you modest enough to acknowledge that the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies also to atheists, and are you also looking to find out why they do it or how they are seemingly oblivious to it?

Yes, or no?

The topic for debate: Do you agree with that? Do you see this "super D-K" applying to some of the discussions/debates in this forum? Do you think there are other factors the researchers may have missed?

For me, these explanations line up quite well with the behaviors I commonly notice among creationists, most notably the lack of humility. IMO, that explains why creationists are so prone to argue via empty assertion. They think so highly of themselves, they figure "because I say so" is a valid form of argumentation and don't seem to really understand why the rest of us don't.

It applies to both sides of the coin, and the sooner you realize that, the better.

[Jose Fly]

Hmm. Do creationists think of themselves as being more experts in the fields of science than atheists? In my experience, no.

I've pointed out several examples here in this forum, where a creationist will basically argue via their own say-so and expect the other person to go with that over the actual work of professional scientists.

Not only that, but it almost seem as if atheists have a religious experience once they accept the atheistic worldview.

It almost seem as if, once a person accepts atheism, that they magically gain this mysterious knowledge and insight on all things related to science, ESPECIALLY biology and cosmology.

This would be like a naturalistic "holy spirit" that sweeps over them once they profess atheism.

Now they are bonified experts on evolution and cosmology.

Second, you are insinuating in your statement that just because a person is a creationist that the person cannot (or is not) educated in science...and not only that, but you are insinuating that just because a person is a creationist that the atheist is automatically is superior in knowledge than the creationist.

That is why your statement is so one-sided against the creationist, but there is nothing said in question of the knowledge of the atheist.

SMH.

FYI, this has nothing to do with atheism.

Um, no. The experts that we (creationists) appeal to, are also professionals in the field.

Atheists have there "go to" guys, and so do we.

Philosophy: We can appeal to Alvin Plantiga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, to name a few.

Evolution/Aiogenesis: Kent Hovind, Kevin Ham, Stephen Meyers, Michael Behe, Johnathan Wells, William Dembski.

Cosmology: Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig (im sure there is more, but those are my go-to guys).

All of those guys are professionals, who have the same fancy pancy degrees that the atheists go-to guys have. They just reach radically different conclusions and there lies the debate.

That you see Hovind and Ham as professional scientists is absolutely hilarious. Tell me, what are Hovind's and Ham's degrees in, where did they get them, and what scientific work have they done?

Sooo, question; are you modest enough to acknowledge that the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies also to atheists, and are you also looking to find out why they do it or how they are seemingly oblivious to it?

Yes, or no?

Again, this has nothing to do with atheism.

[Miles]

, they seem to believe that their knowledge and expertise is superior to the actual professionals in those fields. Thus, we often see them attempt to debate against the work of professionals by mere assertion (IOW, "because I say so").

Um, no. The experts that we (creationists) appeal to, are also professionals in the field.

Atheists have there "go to" guys, and so do we.

Philosophy: We can appeal to Alvin Plantiga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, to name a few.

Thing is, atheists don't go to philosophers because philosophy is irrelevant to evolution. They go to scientists

Cosmology: Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig (im sure there is more, but those are my go-to guys).

Again, atheists don't go to cosmologist because their expertise is irrelevant to evolution. They go to biological, archeological, and earth scientists.

Evolution/Aiogenesis: Kent Hovind, Kevin Ham, Stephen Meyers, Michael Behe, Johnathan Wells, William Dembski.

Well let's take a look.

Kent Hovind
Education: BA religious education (Midwestern Baptist College, an unaccredited school) MA and PhD Christian Education (Patriot University, a diploma mill)

He entered Illinois Central College and then transferred to the unaccredited Midwestern Baptist College in 1972, attaining a Bachelor of Religious Education in 1974 In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind received a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from (also unaccredited) Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Patriot University is a diploma mill
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, any education in the biological, archeological, or earth sciences? NOPE...... Heck, he doesn't have ANY education worth crowing about.


Ken ham
Education: BA applied science (Queensland Institute of Technology)

Ham earned a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and holds a Diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, Anything of note? NOPE.


Stephen Meyers,
Education: PhD in History and Philosophy of Science (Cambridge University) Associate Professor of philosophy (Whitworth College)

In 1981, Meyer graduated from Whitworth College before being employed at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985. Meyer then took up a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas, where he obtained a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University in 1991 In Fall 1990 he became an assistant professor of philosophy at Whitworth, where he was promoted to Associate Professor in 1995
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, any education in the biological, archeological, or earth sciences? NOPE


Michael Behe
Education: BA chemestry (Drexel University). PhD biochemestry (University of Pennsylvania)

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, He moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. From 2005 to 2015, Lehigh University's Department of Biological Sciences exhibited a position statement on its website stating that its faculty reject Behe's views on evolution:
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, Well there is his PhD in biochemestry, so I suppose we can let him get a foot in the door.


Jonathan Wells
Education: BA geology/biology (Berkeley) MA religious education. (Unification Theological Seminary)
PhD religious studies (Yale). PhD molecular and cellular biology (UC Berkeley)


Upon his release [from Fort levenworth military prison in 1968], Wells returned to Berkeley where he completed his studies with a major in geology and physics and a minor in biology. In 1974, Wells joined the Unification Church of the United States. He graduated from the church's Unification Theological Seminary in 1978 with a master's degree in religious education.
Wells continued his studies at Yale University, earning a PhD in religious studies in 1986, focusing on historical reactions to Darwinism. In 1994, Wells earned another PhD in molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley.
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm. Now here's a guy who might have a decent background in the biological, archeological, or earth sciences? So lets let him in.


William dembski
Education: MAs statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago). PhDs mathematics and philosophy (University of Chicago). MD. Master of Divinity in theology ( Princeton Theological Seminary)

Dembski ultimately completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).[11]
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm. Sorry, but advanced degrees in mathematics, philosophy, and theology just don't cut it.

So out of a possible score of 6 (the number of experts that you imply are qualified to speaking on evolution) you have 1-1/2

All of those guys are professionals, who have the same fancy pancy degrees that the atheists go-to guys have. They just reach radically different conclusions and there lies the debate.

Fact is, they DON"T have the same fancy pancy degrees that the atheists go-to guys have. With the exception of Wells and perhaps Behe, none of the professionals (Kent Hovind excluded of course) have anything to do with evolution, and can therefore be dismissed,


Then, of course, there's the famous Project Steve.

Project Steve is a list of scientists
with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[2]

In February 2009, the milestone #1000 was assigned to professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Steven P. Darwin (no relation to Charles). Subsequent milestones were #1100 on August 25, 2009, #1200 on April 6, 2012, and #1300 on January 15, 2014.[19]

That's 1,300 vs your 7 here (Kent Hovind's degrees from unaccredited schools don't qualify him as any kind of a scientist)


.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Thing is, atheists don't go to philosophers because philosophy is irrelevant to evolution. They go to scientists.

And who insinuated anything about about atheists going to philosophers as it pertains to evolution?

Straw man.

Again, atheists don't go to cosmologist because their expertise is irrelevant to evolution. They go to biological, archeological, and earth scientists.

Straw man. I never claimed otherwise and can quite frankly care less. The main idea is, atheists have there go-to guys as it pertains to scientific inquiry, and so does theists.

Kent Hovind
Education: BA religious education (Midwestern Baptist College, an unaccredited school) MA and PhD Christian Education (Patriot University, a diploma mill)

He entered Illinois Central College and then transferred to the unaccredited Midwestern Baptist College in 1972, attaining a Bachelor of Religious Education in 1974 In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind received a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from (also unaccredited) Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Patriot University is a diploma mill

Hmmm, any education in the biological, archeological, or earth sciences?

Not so fast.

First off, Kent is a young earth creationist (YEC), and YEC is the low minority when it comes to the age of the universe, and YEC advocates are looked down upon in the scientific community with distain.

And most (keyword: most) of those accredited universities and higher learning institutions undoubtedly teach macroevolution and an old earth, which Kent completely opposes and doesn't want any part of.

So that is why he never attended those accredited universities...but his actual education never took a hit, as he can go toe to the with any scientist or evolutionist on the subject of cosmology and evolution....and he has many public debates doing such and even put the smack down on 3 evolutionists at one time...



^This was a complete slaughter fest and I actually felt bad for the three "scientists".

Heck, he doesn't have ANY education worth crowing about.

What he has is a plethora of debates where he destroys his atheistic opponents.

Ken ham
Education: BA applied science (Queensland Institute of Technology)

Ham earned a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and holds a Diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, Anything of note? NOPE.

Right, nothing to note, other than his BA in applied science with an emphasis on environmental biology.

Nope, nothing besides that. Oh, wait, Ken has an honorary Doctor of Science from Bryan College in Tennessee.

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/ken-ham/

Stephen Meyers,[/b]
Education: PhD in History and Philosophy of Science (Cambridge University) Associate Professor of philosophy (Whitworth College)

In 1981, Meyer graduated from Whitworth College before being employed at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985. Meyer then took up a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas, where he obtained a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University in 1991 In Fall 1990 he became an assistant professor of philosophy at Whitworth, where he was promoted to Associate Professor in 1995
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, any education in the biological, archeological, or earth sciences? NOPE

Hmmm, lets go a little beyond wikipedia, shall we?

Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle...

https://stephencmeyer.org/

I would think you would have to be a heck of a scientist to be the director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

Next..

Michael Behe
Education: BA chemestry (Drexel University). PhD biochemestry (University of Pennsylvania)

He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, He moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. From 2005 to 2015, Lehigh University's Department of Biological Sciences exhibited a position statement on its website stating that its faculty reject Behe's views on evolution:
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm, Well there is his PhD in biochemestry, so I suppose we can let him get a foot in the door.

Let them all in.

Jonathan Wells
Education: BA geology/biology (Berkeley) MA religious education. (Unification Theological Seminary)
PhD religious studies (Yale). PhD molecular and cellular biology (UC Berkeley)

Upon his release [from Fort levenworth military prison in 1968], Wells returned to Berkeley where he completed his studies with a major in geology and physics and a minor in biology. In 1974, Wells joined the Unification Church of the United States. He graduated from the church's Unification Theological Seminary in 1978 with a master's degree in religious education.
Wells continued his studies at Yale University, earning a PhD in religious studies in 1986, focusing on historical reactions to Darwinism. In 1994, Wells earned another PhD in molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley.
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm. Now here's a guy who might have a decent background in the biological, archeological, or earth sciences? So lets let him in.

Yeah, lets.

William dembski[/b]
Education: MAs statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago). PhDs mathematics and philosophy (University of Chicago). MD. Master of Divinity in theology ( Princeton Theological Seminary)

Dembski ultimately completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).[11]
(source: Wikiedia)

Hmmm. Sorry, but advanced degrees in mathematics, philosophy, and theology just don't cut it.

Hmm. Again, lets look beyond wikipedia, shall we??

*See capitalized words for emphasis*

A noted mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski was a founding Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture from 1996 until 2016. His most recent book relating to intelligent design is Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information (2014).

Dr. Dembski was previously the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary; a Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Seminary, where he directed its Center for Cultural Engagement; the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at Southern Seminary, where he founded its Center for Theology and Science; and an Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Baylor University, where he headed the first intelligent design think-tank at a major research university: The Michael Polanyi Center.

https://www.discovery.org/p/dembski/

So, as you can see, there is a lot of "science" stuff in there.

So out of a possible score of 6 (the number of experts that you imply are qualified to speaking on evolution) you have 1-1/2

Then, of course, there's the famous Project Steve.

Project Steve is a list of scientists
with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[2]

In February 2009, the milestone #1000 was assigned to professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Steven P. Darwin (no relation to Charles). Subsequent milestones were #1100 on August 25, 2009, #1200 on April 6, 2012, and #1300 on January 15, 2014.[19]

That's 1,300 vs your 7 here (Kent Hovind's degrees from unaccredited schools don't qualify him as any kind of a scientist)

If 1,300 people were advocates of rape while 7 people weren't...who are you rocking with, the 1,300, or the 7?

If you are rocking with the 1,300, then I will leave you to it. If you are rocking with the 7, then you can see my point.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I've pointed out several examples here in this forum, where a creationist will basically argue via their own say-so and expect the other person to go with that over the actual work of professional scientists.

And I am sure that if I do enough digging, I can pull up several examples of atheists doing the same thing.

Again, this has nothing to do with atheism.

Ok, well how about this..

Jonathan Wells is a biologist and intelligent design advocate, and he rejects the scientific consensus.

https://www.discovery.org/p/wells/

So now what?

[Jose Fly]

And I am sure that if I do enough digging, I can pull up several examples of atheists doing the same thing.

Go right ahead.

Jonathan Wells is a biologist and intelligent design advocate, and he rejects the scientific consensus.

https://www.discovery.org/p/wells/

So now what?

Unless he takes his arguments to the scientific community, nothing happens. It's no different than people who reject the scientific consensus of a spherical earth. Wells can believe whatever he wants but it's 100% irrelevant to how science is done.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And I am sure that if I do enough digging, I can pull up several examples of atheists doing the same thing.

Go right ahead.

Or, I can create a thread crying about how the atheist community reject the religious consensus.

Unless he takes his arguments to the scientific community, nothing happens.

The scientific community knows about him quite well. He is a veteran in the game.

It's no different than people who reject the scientific consensus of a spherical earth. Wells can believe whatever he wants but it's 100% irrelevant to how science is done.