>Glenn's comment OTOH implies that we can classify evolution as science
>because a good many scientists do. I agree that most scientists accept a
>view because they have become convinced it is a rational interpretation of
>the available data, and it makes predictions worth pursuing in research,
>not because it suits some agenda. But I'm uncomfortable about using a poll
>to decide that something is science.
I would also suggest that if Glenn is correct, and I question what method
he used to arrive at his conclusion, that most scientists are evolutionists
because they have bought into a world view and not because they have
themselves tested any of its premises. Just exactly what view of evolution
do most of them espouse? This may come as a shock to some on this
listserve, but I would suggest, based upon my scientific friends, that most
scientists do not even care about evolution, one way or the other. It has
no bearing on what they do from day to day. They are evolutionists in the
same sense as laypersons are. The following abstract from an article in
the Western Economic Association, Int. Journal (the article is an
eye-opener) gives an indication of how far wrong our intuition can
sometimes be:
Abstract:
>The social-scientific study of religion has long presumed that religious
>thought is "primitive, " non-rational, incompatible with science, and (thus)
>doomed to decline. Contemporary evidence, however, suggests that religious
>involvement correlates with good mental health, responds to perceived costs
>and benefits, and persists in the face advanced education and scientific
>training. Although professors, scientists, and other highly educated
Americans
>are less religious than the general population, the magnitude of this effect
>is similar to those associated with gender, race, and other demographic
>traits. Moreover, "hard" science faculty are more often religious than
faculty
>in the humanities or social sciences.