This is also pretty interesting.
The NAS oversells the scientific importance of evolution.
With a picture of a cute baby chimp on its cover, the NAS�s new
Science, Evolution, and Creationism booklet states, �Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.� This sweeping statement does not speak for all NAS members. As NAS member Philip Skell wrote in
The Scientist in 2005:
�Darwinian evolution � whatever its other virtues � does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.�
[3]
Some evolutionary biologists would also disagree with the NAS�s claims in its new booklet that evolution has provided much agricultural, medical, or other commercial benefits to society. As evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admitted in
Nature, �improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'.�
[4]
Even when trying to fight anti-biotic resistance, Darwin�s theory provides little guidance. As SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor recounts, �Darwinism tells us that � bacteria survive antibiotics that they're not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That�s it.�
[5] It is probably for this reason that Coyne admitted in
Nature that �if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.�
[6] To actually create drugs that can outsmart evolving bacteria or cancer cells, biomedical researchers must use a process of intelligent design.
and one more.
Moreover, the NAS�s claim that there is no controversy over evolution is a bluff, for there is significant scientific dissent from the view of evolution by natural selection. Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID, criticizes the standard Darwinian mechanism by stating that the �Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric.�
[7] She further observes that �new mutations don�t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.�
[8] In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold admitted in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.�
[9] Other scientists have gone much further.
This is coming from your own people.
. Hey, 33% is more than most Americans would give evolution I guess.