"Project Steve" The scientific community has no problem with evolution

There has been a common myth that there are plenty of scientists that disagree with evolutionary theory and prefer to support creationism and intelligent design.

The National Center for Science Education decided to take this on with "Project Steve"

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

There are more people that are named Steve (or some variation) that support evolution than there are those that disagree with it.

In and of itself this doesn't do anything to prove the theory, though the peer review process does rely on consensus the proof is in the evidence itself. All this does is prove that the ridiculous amassing of lists of scientists that object to evolution is silly and pointless.

I also thought it would lighten the mood on this forum.

That's cool, I actually thought it would be closer to 10%. I don't understand why theists skew facts or make them up to try and support their beliefs. Science is a step forward, don't be afraid of it! Embrace it!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Creationism relies on poking holes in Evolution because its own stance involves magic and other unprovable elements. They can't very well present a theory about man being formed from dirt by a supernatural being, and women being magically formed from ribs, and expect people to take that more seriously than evolutionary science. So focusing on ridiculing and strawmanning Evolution and pretending it is a "theory in crisis" is key to their strategy. I know this because I USED to be a Creationist. I know how that mindset works. You spend so much time thinking about how silly you think it is to believe in Evolution that you forget the utter stupidity of your bronze age beliefs about God saying some magic words and breathing life into a dirt patch to make the first man.

If evolution is the foundation for life, how did life start in the first place – the primordial soup has been disproved for better than 50 years now?

If life somehow started with one single-celled animal - how did the single-cell know enough to split into two?

If a single-celled animal eventually developed into mankind, then you have cannot possibly believe that people have spirits for surely a single-celled animal does not have a spirit.

If a single-celled animal eventually developed into mankind, then you can't possibly believe in mankind’s ability for telepathy or prophecy or most things supernatural.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
If evolution is the foundation for life, how did life start in the first place – the primordial soup has been disproved for better than 50 years now?

Nope, it hasn't been disproven. Please, provide evidence where it was.

If life somehow started with one single-celled animal - how did the single-cell know enough to split into two?

Life starts at the first self-replicating molecule, no with a single-celled organism that has no knowledge of reproduction.

If a single-celled animal eventually developed into mankind, then you have cannot possibly believe that people have spirits for surely a single-celled animal does not have a spirit.

What would that have to do with the scientific validity of the claim? If the science contradicts your religion it's a personal problem, not a factual one.

If a single-celled animal eventually developed into mankind, then you can't possibly believe in mankind’s ability for telepathy or prophecy or most things supernatural.

Because I don't.
But that's an entirely separate discussion that is off-topic in this part of ATS

Originally posted by bowlbyville
If evolution is the foundation for life, how did life start in the first place – the primordial soup has been disproved for better than 50 years now?

How so?

Evolution isn’t a theory about the origin of life, it’s a theory of how life changes over time. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis – life arising from nonliving matter.

I tell you what, I’ll go first. I’m assuming that you’re talking about the original Miller-Urey experiment from 1953. If I may draw an analogy, saying that “the primordial soup has been disproved for better than 50 years now” based on the original M-U experiment is a bit like saying that supersonic aircraft must not exist because the Wright Flyer didn’t achieve the speed of sound.

One of the first areas of the M-U experiment that people attack is that it didn’t accurately model the composition of the secondary atmosphere as we understand it today. Which is completely true. Miller designed the experiment based on what was known at the time. The fallacy here is either making the assumption that no one bothered to update the experiment as new things were learned about the secondary atmosphere, which is completely untrue, or to flat out ignore the findings of research that has been conducted which does just that. The refinements made to the experiment actually bolster the concept of abiogenesis in the primordial secondary atmosphere, not disprove it.

Another are of M-U that people attack is in regards to the constituents of the secondary atmosphere not being sufficient to generate amino acids. This information comes from geochemical research which, unfortunately, only paints half the picture. The models of the secondary atmosphere generated by geochemists are, typically, based solely on volcanic gases found in modern eruptions (water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, etc.). This isn’t a bad start, but it’s not the sole possible source of gases which could have been found in the secondary atmosphere. Work has been done to study the gasses that would be expelled from layers of accreted chondritic material from which this planet was likely formed and those gases were found to include methane and ammonia. So between early eruptions and chondritic gasses, you have all of the materials you need to generate amino acids.

The third major area of M-U that people attack is the presence of formaldehyde and cyanide as part of the reaction process, usually stating that they couldn’t have been present while life evolved because they are toxic to life. This is a relatively simple misunderstanding about their function as essential building blocks in the formation of glycine, the simplest amino acid, via the Strecker synthesis. And the same synthesis can be carried out with slightly more complex aldehydes to form other amino acids readily.

Any other objections?