For the Steve, Steven, Stephen, Stephan, Stephanie, Stefanie's, etc. of the world...

[danaeris]

Project Steve

Creationists and proponents of "Intelligent Design" often circulate lists of scientists who do not believe in evolution, or who believe in creationism.

In a parody of these lists, the National Center for Science Education has created a similar list of scientists who support the theory of evolution -- with a twist. NCSE's list, you see, only includes scientists whose name is a variation on Stephen, in honour of their late friend Stephen Jay Gould.

NCSE estimates that only 1% of scientists can be counted as "Steves," but ultimately, the percentage is irrelevant; similar lists of scientists published by creationist groups can be compared simply by asking, "Yes, but how many Steves does it have?"

To keep themselves honest -- and point out the flaws in creationist-published lists -- the List of Steves includes not only the name of the scientists in question, but also where they got their degrees, when, and where they are currently employed. In contrast, upon investigation the lists circulated by creationist groups often include scientists who in fact DO support evolution, "scientists" who are not actually employed as scientists, and even people who got their diploma from diploma mills.

At present, the List of Steves, which has been collecting names since 2003, includes 540 scientists. Visit the web page for more information on how the List of Steves compares with Creationist lists, or to add yourself to the list.

Link courtesy of joedecker

Comments

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, there is nothing logically preventing somebody from being on a list supporting Intelligent Design, and a list supporting Evolution.

Addendum

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Having read the statement in the Evolution list, it is mutually exclusive (and specifically so) to intelligent design.

That said, it is not impossible to support the two concepts.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

That depends on your definition of ID. If you take the original definition, of a God-driven evolution, you're right. (That's the one I believe, btw.) But Creationists in the U.S. have been gradually redefining the term to mean something else - something that has a lot less evolutionary theory in it. I hate that, because it means I have to specify which definition I use, every single time I identify my belief in a Creation that follows the model of evolution proposed by modern science.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

See, I'm not sure if I'd blame the creationists for that vagueness in definition.

As it appears to me, if anything the creationists are moving AWAY from something that does away with evolutionary theory - that's why they switched from creationism (God created everything, seven days, etc...) to intelligent design (God (or a God-like entity) has had a hand in the way the world is).

It strikes me, especially reading the Steve page, that it is the Evolutionists who have been attempting to make an argument ad-absurdium by reducing intelligent design to simple creationism (and to be honest, I think that there are much better ways to keep God out of biology class than simply claiming that those who want him in are all anti-evolution)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

The Creationists are by no means of one mind about this. There are those out there who still support a six-day creation model; there are those who support a canopy theory of creation to account for Biblical lifespans of hundreds of years; there are those who admit to some change due to microevolution, but reject the idea that new species could develop out of that; and there are those who believe (as I do) that evolution was the method God chose for his creation to develop over time.

This last one is the one traditionally called "intelligent design," but the meaning has been shifted by several pseudo-scientific works to be closer to the microevolution belief.

The page does seem to reject any form of intelligent design, including the last one. That is a mistake, IMO. Christians should get their act together and agree that God is too big to be reduced to the contents of a book whose last entry was written nearly two thousand years ago, and that science is describing the methods by which God worked to create the universe.

Until that happens, the best thing for scientists to say is: this is the way the universe developed. We do not know who started it, or if anyone were guiding it along the way, because there is no evidence for or against that. Therefore, you have a choice what you believe. It's either pure evolutionary chance, or a God-directed evolution. There is no scientific certainty in either direction.

Of course, they can't say that, because the creationists would jump all over it. The argument has been polarized, and those of us who believe something that respects both theories are finding ourselves increasingly without any representation in it.

[yiab.livejournal.com]

Christians should get their act together and agree

that would be a good way to start, but christians haven't been able to get together and agree on anything, really, in almost 900 years.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Which is still better, in my opinion, to being forced to agree, as happens with the most prominent branch of the Muslim faith.

Nine hundred? The prophet Mohammed was the student of, and believer in, a pseudo-Christian sect that had been outlawed at the Council of Nicea in the fourth century A.D. This sect believed, among other things, that the concept of the Trinity was wrong and contrary to a monotheistic faith. They believed Jesus was an important prophet, similar in stature to Isaiah, but not the Son of God.

Mohammed began preaching his version of this in the seventh century A.D.

The fact is, Christians have never been able to agree on much of anything. Most agree to certain basic tenets, but there are faiths that call themselves Christian - JWs and Mormons come to mind - who do not even agree to those.

[yiab.livejournal.com]

i may have my numbers off, but i was trying to refer to the split between the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church - the first major schism in christianity to my knowledge. since then, of course, things have become considerably more divided, moreso in the past two hundred years than ever before.
my point is that christians can't get together and agree on anything, how would they ever get together and agree on this one specific thing? i would love to see christianity as a whole agree on something, even if it's only between the officials and bureaucrats of the various sects, but i don't think it's going to happen.

there's also the question of what counts as "christian", of course. many christians would not consider catholics to be in that category, but many outside christendom would consider "jews for jesus" to be a christian sect.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

There are very few modern Christian groups who do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christian. Similarly, Jews for Jesus is definitely a Christian denomination. I'll look up the doctrines that define Christianity for the bulk of the denominations out there. There really is a specific list.

I recognized what you were referring to, and your dates aren't off by too much - about a hundred years, I think, though it could be as much as three hundred. I don't remember exactly. Though that may be the first big split in the church as a political/social entity, the apostle Paul makes reference to sects of Christianity in about 50 A.D.

[qedrakmar.livejournal.com]

One of my old professors is on the list... I'm greatly amused. :)