[sc]
>>However, you are in error as to what
>>the National Academy of Sciences is. Indeed, most if not all of the
>>members are outstanding scientists.
>
>
[ko'b]
>Are you a member? If not, how many times have you been invited to join?
No a never. The NAS elects members, it does not just invite others to join.
>How many people do you personally know who are members?
Several, including my grad school advisor and post doc advisor and a number
of my colleagues at the UW and elsewhere.
I know a dozen; by
>their own admission none are "leading" scientists, and they have confided
>that in their opinion neither are the majority of the members.
This simply does not describe the NAS.
It is the most prestigious science organization in the US, and perhaps the
world and election to the academy is a very momentous and uncommon
privelege. Membership is quite uncommon and highly selective (perhaps only
15 UW faculty are members, out of hundreds of UW faculty in the sciences).
The recent election of a UW professor in Biological Chemistry was cause for
much celebration and recognition. At this institution, when faculty are
elected to the academy, they are given nice salary increases and become
inundated for requests to give seminars (both across the campus and across
the country). It is extremely rare for junior scientists to be elected;
therefore, the academy's membership mostly consists of senior scientists
who have been able to compile a significant body of research and have been
consistently productive in their careers.
The above better describes the NAS.
So, back to the original thread of this conversation: When a survey
reports that the large majority of NAS members do not believe in a
transcendent god or immortality, it is reasonable to conclude that leading
scientists generally are not open to issues of faith.
Steve