Luskin at The Federalist: More than 1,100 scientists have signed a list agreeing they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” As a scientist, I’ve signed that list. But as an attorney, I can attest that many of these scientists — and others who are afraid to sign the list — face discrimination because they won’t toe the Darwinian line.
Wait. Scott and Branch are key players in the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby! How’s that for objectivity? A serious poll would be done by a pollster without links to either side.
It’s hard to understand why these people imagine that the Big Science response to COVID-19 would be viewed by many people as a success. Many people around the world have experienced it as one panicfest after another, featuring contradictory opinions on all sorts of things shouted at us from “the science.”
Clearly, there’s no war on science as such but when something sounds unbelievable, people tend not to believe it.
Note: 3M Canada’s response has been mere dismay, with no suggestion that it might be useful to ask whether anything has happened recently to cause the erosion of trust. Sure. That’ll help.
It’s nice to know that at least one commentator on the poll remembers the Wistar meet of 1966 (over fifty years ago, actually).
Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Pure naturalist atheists are not that common once you get off campus and a safe distance from the raging Woke. Most people would rather you think they were creationists (provided you don’t push it too far), which likely accounts for the drop in the second set, when a clear alternative for theists is provided. Some of us think this change in question is long overdue.
And, he says, there is no nice way to put it: A new survey by Gallup shows that only 48% of U.S. adults have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in academia, down from 57% in 2015. And it’s not just due to partisanship; confidence has fallen among people of all political persuasions. Read More…