37

I've seen this claim stated in many places, for example the talk.origins FAQ:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Original source: Newsweek?

Now, with some source-hopping I found the source of the claim to be a magazine article:
Larry Martz & Ann McDaniel, "Keeping God Out of Class (Washington and bureau reports)". Newsweek (Newsweek Inc.) 1987-JUN-29, Pages 22 & 23. ISSN 0028-9604.

I don't know if this is the original source, or if it refers to a scientific study. I'd like to know that.

Quote from the Newsweek article

Wikipedia also makes a reference to the Newsweek article in question. They have a footnote quoting Newsweek:

By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'.

Now, I can't get my hands on the Newsweek article in question. However, it sounds to me that there's one magazine article from 1987 that talks about "one count" without references. And this gets cited all around the web.

The questions

Does the Newsweek article say any more about this count? Is there some proper research behind the claim, and if so, what are the methods for counting? Is the fraction of creationists in life scientists in the US really only 0.15%?

I say only because using a source talk.origins used, too, in 1997 a full 44% of American adults believed in creationism. Of all scientists, the amount was 5%. I'm used to seeing figures like these, so 0.15% for a specific group of scientists seems very little. However, if only is offensive to some and removed again, I'm not going to argue.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
StackExchange saddens dancek
  • 3,829
  • 1
  • 25
  • 37
  • In general, it's better if questions are neutral in tone. – Sklivvz Sep 19 '11 at 16:00
  • @Sklivvz: I agree, but I don't see this as affecting neutrality. Even the talk.origins FAQ that I refer to uses *only*. If the wording does indeed seem subjective to you, let's change it. – StackExchange saddens dancek Sep 19 '11 at 16:07
  • Are you claiming that the figures quoted by Newsweek and the other articles might be false? What exactly is your reason for doubting this? Is there any evidence that the numbers are different? The ICR article which your post is refuting has been removed from the ICR website, which might itself be significant. – DJClayworth Sep 19 '11 at 18:15
  • 1
    OK, I'm beginning to see the problem here. This site http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html quotes "Robinson 1995" as one of the sources for the figure, without giving the full reference for the paper. The supporting link it gives is to this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm which in turn links to this page http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm which quotes Newsweek but doesn't quote the paper and doesn't give any precision to the Newsweek reference. – DJClayworth Sep 19 '11 at 18:26
  • @DJClayworth: I'm saying it's hard to actually count how many of 0.5M specific people believe in Santa Claus. Considering that ~5% of all US scientists believe in creationism, it seems strangely low that just 0.15% of life scientists *give credence to creation-science*. I'm just interested in what the methodology for counting was, or if there are other surveys with similar figures. What raises my alarms is that everyone else cites Newsweek, but it looks like Newsweek got the figure from somewhere else. – StackExchange saddens dancek Sep 19 '11 at 18:27
  • 1
    This page http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art55244.asp gives the full Newsweek quote as "Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23", so anyone with access to a library could check it up. – DJClayworth Sep 19 '11 at 18:29
  • @DJClayworth: The reference is already in the question, and I was actually hoping that someone would check it out. I live in Finland, so finding the physical magazine is next to impossible for me. – StackExchange saddens dancek Sep 19 '11 at 18:32
  • 2
    @dancek I can think of several reasons for the difference. First the 5% might take a less narrow view of what "scientist" means. It's reasonably well know that more engineers than life-scientists believe in Creationism. There might be measuring and sampling issues on both sides. But all of this would be speculation. – DJClayworth Sep 19 '11 at 18:34
  • My points about the reference is not discussion. I'm hoping that someone who reads this will have access to a physical copy, and can check out the reference. – DJClayworth Sep 19 '11 at 18:34
  • 2
    Of course what we really need is the full reference for the mysterious "Robinson 1995" paper is. – DJClayworth Sep 19 '11 at 18:37
  • 1
    Let’s not get too fixated on the Robinson paper. This may be the origin of this particular claim but as far as I know there are more recent polls among scientists about this, if somebody could dig those up this might also be beneficial (I vaguely remember something in *The Greatest Show On Earth* …). – Konrad Rudolph Sep 20 '11 at 13:52
  • Given that the figures are mentioned by Newsweek in 1987, I don't think Robinson's 1995 paper can be the origin of the claim. – StackExchange saddens dancek Sep 20 '11 at 13:56
  • The Robinson paper is actually a web page [here](http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) and uses Newsweek as a reference (Larry Martz & Ann McDaniel, "Keeping God Out of Class (Washington and bureau reports)". Newsweek (Newsweek Inc.) 1987-JUN-29, Pages 22 & 23. ISSN 0028-9604) – Sklivvz Sep 25 '11 at 14:27
  • That's the actual Robinson paper? I assumed that was a web page talking about the Robinson paper. In that case, not a reliable source (though I have to say Religious Tolerance are OK as websites go). – DJClayworth Oct 09 '11 at 17:12
  • I have to post this, if only because no on else has. (And this is a skeptical site! Maybe it's so well known, no one thought it worth mentioning.) I present: [Project Steve!](http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve) – John Rhoades Oct 10 '11 at 14:19
  • 1
    Your examples of percentages (going from 44%, to 5%, to .15%) makes sense in that your narrowing down the demographic to people with specific education and training that answers the very question creationism is trying to answer, albeit scientifically. – DA01 Oct 12 '11 at 03:10
  • 1
    Also narrowing from creationism as a whole to whatever "creation-science" actually is, may be significant. – Weaver Feb 01 '15 at 14:39

4 Answers4

30

700 scientists is quite likely an over-estimation.

The Discovery Institute can only be described as a pro-creation, anti-Evolution think-tank.

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:

  • supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
  • supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
  • encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

They run a petition for scientists to publicly express their doubts against evolution.

Now:

  • The Institute is farily well known among creationists;
  • The Institute is openly biased towards creationism (it has interest in showing a number of scientists which is as large as possible);
  • The petition is open to scientists from all over the world (not only the US);
  • The petition is open to any kind of scientist (not only from related fields)

So one would expect that the numbers of these petition are certain to be much larger than the life-scientists who support creationism in the US.

How many signatories do they have?

700

Now, is it sustainable that there are thousands or tens of thousands of creationist scientists, and yet their most notable institute can only muster 700 signatures? It seems completely unrealistic.

So while this doesn't prove the point, it is strong evidence. Nothing proves the point because that would be actually debating what people believe and we can't do that skeptically.

What we can say for certain is that only at most 700 scientist bothered signing this notable petition. You'll be the judge if their overall number can be far off.

What are the possible reasons for this number being so low?

  • There is overwhelming scientific support for evolution. The empirical proof is super-solid and extensive. People in the sector will be exposed to it.
  • There is a strict correlation between level of literacy and disbelief in creationism. E.g. see this 2010 Gallup poll.

    Americans' views on human origins vary significantly by level of education and religiosity. Those who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view. Those with college degrees and postgraduate education are more likely to hold one of the two viewpoints involving evolution.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
  • 24
    I don’t think this list is at all relevant. Life scientists will be very reluctant to sign it with their name since that would effectively cut them off from the scientific community and lose them their job. Now, I don’t agree with the babble put forth in *Expelled* but I doubt many life science institutes would hire openly admitted creationists: they are clearly disqualified professionally. – Konrad Rudolph Sep 20 '11 at 14:54
  • 2
    Is this a valid comparison? The petition is open for all kinds of scientists, and [according to poll data](http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm) 5% of U.S. scientists believed in creationism in 1997. That has to mean at least tens of thousands of people. How many of them signed the petition? Or is the 5% poll just totally wrong? – StackExchange saddens dancek Sep 20 '11 at 15:15
  • @dancek if you are going to just reply with your original doubts I don't think we are going anywhere here. – Sklivvz Sep 20 '11 at 15:20
  • 14
    @KonradRudolph I think the "creationist closet life scientist" is not a very realistic scenario. These people would be basically lying for a living (they would be using/adoption/teaching evolution while secretly thinking it's all hogwash). Ok that people are incoherent, but this seems a bit too much. – Sklivvz Sep 20 '11 at 15:22
  • 1
    @Sklivvz Yes, I believe the same thing (although extreme cognitive dissonance exists elsewhere and drives otherwise intelligent people to do crazy stuff) – but the Discovery Institute list doesn’t show this one way or the other. – Konrad Rudolph Sep 20 '11 at 15:27
  • @KonradRudolph maybe (and I repeat *maybe*) the 700 in the question comes from the 700 on Discovery Institute? In that, even they can't list more than 700 scientists endorsing creationism? – Sklivvz Sep 20 '11 at 16:17
  • 1
    I sympathize with this answer. The statement the 700 have signed up to is ""We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. [...]". That's a statement that a lot of scientists might sign up to while still believing in an old earth, the current interpretation of the fossil record and the general viability of natural selection. – DJClayworth Sep 20 '11 at 17:50
  • 12
    I seem to recall that an individual actually tracked down all 700 "scientists" on that list, and came away with even more surprising discoveries. 1) The original statement they signed was changed, and did not reflect the creationist slant originally. 2) Most of the "scientists" were actually not actual scientists (i.e. received diplomas at diploma mill institutions). 3) Some of the individuals that singed didn't really seem to be concerned with science, just generating publicity. Larian showed me a video on that research once. – JasonR Sep 20 '11 at 18:04
  • 12
    On a skeptics site, vague recollections shouldn't be on-topic, even in comments. – DJClayworth Sep 20 '11 at 21:06
  • 1
    I was hoping he could post the link to the video. He's on a business trip at the moment, so eventually he'll get to this I'm sure. – JasonR Sep 21 '11 at 12:52
  • 5
    @DJClayworth I beleive they are referring to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM DonExodus is a YouTube personality (I think he's either has or is doing a PhD in biology) that has taken up the torch against creationism and has a long educational video series teaching biology and evolution. I think he did a followup some year later where some of the people claimed they've asked the discovery institute to be taken of the list, but haven't been. – Kit Sunde Oct 09 '11 at 18:26
  • 2
    The 700 from *Dissent from Darwinism* is not the count that Newsweek is using. We know this because the Newsweek article is from 1987, whereas *Dissent from Darwinism* only started its list in 2001. That means that this answer, which critiques the Discovery Institute list, is in fact irrelevant. – DJClayworth Oct 11 '11 at 14:48
  • @DJClayworth actually, the question I am trying to address is: "Are only 700 out of 480,000 life scientists creationists?" -- the Newsweek article is only one avenue of inquest. – Sklivvz Oct 11 '11 at 15:00
  • 1
    The question is really focussed on the Newsweek article. The common figure of 700 I think leads people to confuse the two. – DJClayworth Oct 11 '11 at 15:07
  • 1
    The idea that one can expect everyone who holds a certain view to sign a related petition is an extraordinary claim that should be referenced. There are a lot of topic on which there are petition so there should be scientific work about the idea. As it stands this answer is nearly pure personal opinion. – Christian Jun 07 '12 at 14:11
  • @Christian I make no such claim. I am just saying that the number cited in Newsweek and the number *given by creationists* are the same, thus, the Newsweek number is *unsurprising* and certainly *plausible*, if not an *overestimation*. I do not claim anything more than this. – Sklivvz Jun 07 '12 at 20:52
  • 2
    You do make that claim: "one would expect that the numbers of these petition are certain to be much larger".This answer is pretty much pure speculation. That is "I think 700 is an overestimate because X" with nothing more than your word on the matter to back up the claim. – Bob Nov 16 '12 at 01:35
  • Sorry to dredge up a pretty old answer, BTW. Just happened to run across this answer today. – Bob Nov 16 '12 at 01:36
18

The Newsweek article which appears to be the ultimate source of this quote does not seem to give any explanation of where the figure comes from. Here's the whole paragraph:

Changing strategy: In the Louisiana case, the fundamentalist forces had seemed on the best legal ground since the famous "monkey trial" of 1925, when biology teacher John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution in Tennessee. That outcome was overturned on a technicality, but Clarence Darrow's humiliating grilling of the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan effectively beat back the anti-evolution cause for years. In the 1970s, however, the fundamentalists devloped a new strategy; to establish the Biblical account of creation as a respectable scientific theory and demand equal time for its teaching. By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared "abruptly." The first state law demanding equal time for this notion, in Arkansas, was struck down by a federal court as a transparent promotion of religion. But in Louisiana Keith's bill was carefully tailored to omit religious overtones, and it had a specific secular purpose: to promote academic freedom by ensuring that all sides are taught.

"By one count" is one of those phrases articles use when they really aren't very sure about the provenance and accuracy of the figure. That's not to say the figure has no value at all. But it shouldn't be taken as an accurate figure, and certainly not be as frequently quoted on the web as it appears to be.

The quote is certainly nothing to do with the 700 signatories on the Discovery Institute's widely criticised "Dissent from Darwin list. The quote is from 1987 and the Dissent from Darwin list started in 2001.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
10

We don't know. The claim made by Newsweek is unreliable.

This is only a partial answer. It only addresses the specific claim made in Newsweek on June 29, 1987, cited by some others. It doesn't address the actual number of creationism-supporting life scientists.

After showing this question to some friends, I got access to the Newsweek article (behind a paywall). The article is about the debate on creation "science" in public education.

The electronic version makes no reference to outside sources*. The full paragraph including the 700/480,000 figure is as follows:

Changing strategy: In the Louisiana case, the fundamentalist forces had seemed on the best legal ground since the famous "monkey trial" of 1925, when biology teacher John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution in Tennessee. That outcome was overturned on a technicality, but Clarence Darrow's humiliating grilling of the fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan effectively beat back the anti-evolution cause for years. In the 1970s, however, the fundamentalists devloped a new strategy; to establish the Biblical account of creation as a respectable scientific theory and demand equal time for its teaching. By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared "abruptly." The first state law demanding equal time for this notion, in Arkansas, was struck down by a federal court as a transparent promotion of religion. But in Louisiana Keith's bill was carefully tailored to omit religious overtones, and it had a specific secular purpose: to promote academic freedom by ensuring that all sides are taught.

As there's no mention on who did the counting and how, the specific claim made by Newsweek has no known scientific basis.

* It's conceivable but improbable that the physical magazine has content the online (text-only) version doesn't.

Flimzy
  • 15,520
  • 14
  • 63
  • 132
StackExchange saddens dancek
  • 3,829
  • 1
  • 25
  • 37
  • I think it's the same count from the Discovery Institute which I provided. – Sklivvz Oct 10 '11 at 15:31
  • 1
    I have to agree that this is weak support for the claim, especially a claim that has been widely disseminated. However that's not the same as "the claim has no basis". If this answer had stuck to the facts, instead of pushing an agenda, it would get an upvote. – DJClayworth Oct 11 '11 at 14:42
  • @DJClayworth I tried to keep this answer factual (I already showed my POV enough or maybe too much in the question) and not address whether the actual percentage would be lower or higher than 0.15%. I changed to "no scientific basis", which I think accurate. Do you agree? – StackExchange saddens dancek Oct 11 '11 at 15:28
  • 1
    I don't think that "scientific bases" is correct, and in fact, it is not a correct answer to your title question. If one data source is invalid, the answer should be that we don't know. Like this it reads like 700 is a wrong number: you haven't proved it! – Sklivvz Oct 13 '11 at 07:52
  • @Sklivvz Good points. I answered a question in the body, not the title, without realizing it. Is this better now? – StackExchange saddens dancek Oct 13 '11 at 07:58
-3

The full Newsweek article is available over at: http://rsr.org/newsweek-1987

As a creationist, I asked the article's authors, Larry Martz and Ann McDaniel, for information on that statistic. The statistic is invalid as their replies and the information at that link should make obvious.

In 1987 Martz & McDaniel wrote,

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared "abruptly."

To a request for more details, on June 12, 2012 Ann McDaniel replied to Real Science Radio:

"Bob – I wish I had the notes for that story, but I don’t have everything from 25 years ago, and I don’t remember. So sorry that I cannot help you."

On April 1, 2013 Larry Martz wrote,

"Mr. Enyart, ... I was the New York writer on this story, working from reports from Ann McDaniel and others who weren't named in the byline, along with whatever telephone reporting I did myself. I don't remember which of them came up with that figure, or what its provenance was. It might well have been Ginny Carroll, who was Newsweek's principal reporter on Christian religious affairs; but sad to say, Ginny is dead. Your conjecture seems entirely reasonable, but none of us can confirm it... I think you are probably safe to use your conjecture for the source, along with 'probably.' best, larry martz".

Bob Enyart also spoke with Glen Wolfram, the CRS membership director who has served in that position since the 1980s. Wolfram agreed with Enyart's conclusion that Newsweek was likely referring to the publicly known number of scientist members of CRS. He provided published membership records from throughout the 1980s. Over the five years from mid-1982 to mid-1987, the average CRS membership was about 2,000 with 36 percent being voting members, that is, having earned a postgraduate science degree. So there were an average of 710 "scientists with respectable academic credentials" as members of CRS in the years leading up to that Newsweek article, which number was undoubtedly the source for that 1987 report.

The late Roger Ebert may have been remembering the fabricated claim that nearly 100% of scientists reject design when he put the percent at "99.975". As for the 99.86, that percentage was, possibly unintentionally, arrived at by some who incorrectly calculated a percentage based on the "count". So Real Science Radio hereby ask evolutionists to help us creationists by correcting anyone who still promotes that incorrect 99.86%. Thanks!

Community
  • 1
Bob Enyart
  • 19
  • 2
  • 7
    You should probably add something acknowledging that the only source you cite is something from your own website. If there's a way you could add other sources or link to the exact transcripts, that would be great. – HDE 226868 Feb 02 '15 at 00:39
  • Thanks HDE 226868. A PDF of the full Newsweek article is [here](https://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf). And further, I don't know if it's legal to post here, but we have a list of thousands of advanced degreed scientists who have publicly indicated their opposition to Darwinism. It's at that in my answer, above. – Bob Enyart Feb 24 '19 at 22:21
  • HDE 226868 also, the link in my answer also quotes and links to an article by Glenn Branch from Eugenie Scott's anti-creation NCSE which gives the same conclusion that I give above of CRS as the source for this Newsweek "Count". – Bob Enyart Feb 24 '19 at 22:29