Thanks for posting that. There are a lotta links. I got the 400 scientists from an earlier post in this thread which went unchallenged, so I thought it was fair to allow it.
The article found revealing was
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3416_doubting_darwinism_through_cre_4_8_2002.asp
National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools
Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License by Skip Evans
They seem pretty up front about their position. They suggest that it is disingenuous for creationists to doubt Darwinism, but not necessarily to doubt evolution, and they make their own word plays against a word play. What I would like to know is, if there aren't 400 scientists that question abiogenesis, how many are there?
Hmmmm. I guess it was "unchallenged" because you eyes are closed.
Also, on another thread there was a long discussion of how at least one of the signers believes in evolution. I wonder how many others on the list also do.
Don't know how many scientists have any feelings at all about abiogenesis.
The word itself tells you that it's not about biology, so probably most biologists have little to no involvement.
Evolution,as in the Theory of Evolution, is used by just about everyone, one way or another. Most of the hype you see is journalists, not scientific journals.
The problem for the interested non-scientist is that much of the work doesn't translate well into popularese. Even the much hyped "punctuated equilibrium" so called paradigm shift was kind of ho hum to ecologists, especially botanically oriented ones, who know that a new envrironmental niche opening up means that all kinds of stuff moves in and variants that wouldn't have survived before suddenly have massive new opportunities.
Since all those immobile plant variants just sit there, they can change radically from the versions just over the mountain and sooner or later they don't cross pollinate effectively anymore. Voila: a new species.
A clarification of my previous post:
When I say evolution is used by just about everyone, my referent (imy own mind) was "in biology"
Sorry, it's been a long day.
Oh, another bit.
I think somwehere you asked how the ID business has come so far if it's invalid. Moonie $$$ and support for the Discovery Institute is a large factor not everyone is aware of.
There are probably more than 400 signatures in total, but some of the signatories have honorary degrees, some have degrees from unaccredited schools, and some wish they hadn't signed because of the use the list has been put to. There still remains a fair number of true scientists on the list that favour ID over evolution, and/or abiogenesis.
However, if you take a look at the fallacy of appeal to authority, you will note that it is a fallacy only if the authority used is not an authority in the specific field in question. That removes a fair number from the list; all but 70 I do believe. Those that remain will be scientists within one of the central disciplines of evolutionary biology.
You will find similar problems with Project Steve, however the ratio of biologists to non-biologists is quite different.
The use of both of these lists annoys the hell out of me because they are both appeals to popularity and as such really do not impact the validity of evolution, the ToE, or the way evolution is studied, in any way.
ie: If 1,000,000 people told you your left foot and your right foot are reversed, it would not make the claim true.