Well as many science degrees that are pumped out yearly all over the world indicates that they cant be nearly as intellectually elite as might be inferred on these threads.
Also how many of them are just getting the degree to reach the real goal=$$. Some people will put more money at the top of all priorities and their choices become corrupted by it.
It could just be that many of these 'science degrees' pay lip service only to the evo-god. I think there is good basis here to call your calculations wildly off base, as also your conclusions false on this.
BTW I don’t know who 'science' is but several of you people seem to want to speak for 'him'. Is this another 'appeal to authority?
Wolf
There are three methods of knowledge known to man. You seem void of knowledge of any of the three but they are named Philosophy, Science, and Mathematics.
The method of philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown. In thousands of years it has provided little or no new knowledge. It is void of any fact and all proofs have remained argument.
The method of science is observation of a material fact, evidence, and empirical evidence of the fact and a explanation of the fact with evidence that constitutes theory. Aristotle is known as the father of science. The method of science was invented to exclude faith and belief because faith and belief obstructs and fights new facts or knowledge and views science as a threat. Aristotle's science was retrieved from the Arabs in the early middle ages and accepted by the western world as Aristotelian thought and the method of science. It has no method of observing anything other than a material fact. Faith and belief cannot be observed as a material fact or knowledge and remain argument. Proof is not a term of science. Science provides evidence.
The method of mathematics provides proof of absolutes and determines laws by designation of symbols and numbers. Descartes is thought the father of mathematics and turned to mathematics when his philosophy failed to provide proof of doubt and remained argument that was refused by the church.
The three methods are separate and not interchangeable. Philosophy can only argue faith and belief and is void of facts. Science can only observe material facts and provide the evidence for the fact, not proof. Mathematics only determines absolutes and laws. It does not determine faith and belief not does it observe new facts.
Last there is the failed method of knowledge, Opinion. Opinion is despised by Science, Philosophy and Mathematics. It is incapable of logical argument, is void of facts and knowledge and determines no absolutes or laws. Opinion seeks agenda by accusation, name calling, misrepresentation of facts, lack of knowledge and in the end violence when opinion is refuted. One of opinion is usually known as a opinionest or opinion est. Opinion is thought to be the most vile of all unethical acts.
Now comes a old argument of theological philosophy,(creation dressed up as ID), that has been relegated to opinion for centuries. It begs to be accepted as science. It's premise is that you can't disprove creation or ID and uses a term of philosophy. Well who cares except the opinionest who can't prove or disprove anything by opinion and philosophy. Science simply asks is there any new evidence of a observed fact or knowledge that we can explain by the scientific method. The reply is we have faith and belief, argument and opinion. Science answers you have had thousands of years to provide new facts or knowledge to be explain by science and have failed. You remain argument and the method of philosophy and not a observed fact by science.
Once rejected Creation and ID says we will accomplish our agenda with opinion. We will use the power of philosophical law to impose our faith and belief in science and require it taught as theory. We will distort the meanings and terms science. We will deny any facts of science with opinion. We will refuse and keep from others any knowledge of the scientific method. We will discredit science by any agenda of opinion possible.
However one should caution opinionest to be careful of what they wish. If science ever observes ID or Creation as a fact, that fact will be explained by science whether the the fact is a Deity, God or a unknown. It will not be explained by philosophy. All of faith and belief may cease to exist. Only one or none of religion will be correct. Most of faith and belief along with opinion will become ridicule. The total of their knowledge may be tugging a goat or riding a donkey if lucky.
A example of opinion can be observed in the first four paragraphs and is furnish by another poster. We would like to thank him because opinion can only be accomplish by meaningless, random, and useless thoughts. Not many are so capable of such opinion.
"Also how many of them are just getting the degree to reach the real goal=$$. Some people will put more money at the top of all priorities and their choices become corrupted by it."
I think you're on to something, Running Wolf.
For instance:
The purpose of the "Understanding Evolution" website is to instruct teachers in how they should teach evolution, and the federal government (through the National Science Foundation) came up with $450,000 for the project.
snippet from: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/west200404010900.asp