Understanding TToE has led to many, perhaps most, major modern drugs. By understanding how things like people and viruses adapt is how these discoveries are made.
The percentage of scientists who understand TTOE and are also Christians or Jews is pretty much the same as in the non-scientific population.
And I am very much a Christian.
Your rhetoric, although strong, is without support.
If you are talking about CAMD, then the so-called "genetic algorithms" are merely a restricted form or monte-carlo search algorithms--that is, they rely on luck. There are millions of AI search algorithms out there that could easily stand in with similar if not better results. One reason why is because genetic algorithms suffer from the same difficulties as neural networks, in that they get stuck in local maxima as the "population" is pruned. Increasing your mutation rate is analogous to larger weight adjustments with neural networks and the result is the same: a much longer search period.
In my graduate AI class, my professor remarked that genetic algorithms simply moved the difficult part of the search to the fitness measure. If you had a good enough fitness function, then many search algorithms could do just as well or better. The algorithm itself was inconsequential by comparison.
Then what is your take on this:
If suffering, death and extinction are inevitable components of the evolutionary process, then it follows that the doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense. Firstly, as I’ve already noted, there is no way that humankind can be held responsible for bringing suffering and “evil” into the world. The world is not imperfect because people did something really bad and messed up what had been a perfect place and a perfect way of life. Humans evolved into a world that was already filled with suffering and other forms of imperfection, such as hurricanes, floods and Ice Ages. Secondly, death is not a punishment for sin; death has always been part of the cycle of life and evolution on earth. If humans are not responsible for suffering and evil, and death is simply a natural process rather than a punishment, then what need is there for atonement and redemption? Once I reached the right conclusion to that question, that there is no such need, I only needed a short, quick mental step to advance from discarding theistic evolution to discarding theism in its entirety.Source
Now where did you get that figure (if the term ‘figure’ can be used on such a loosely constructed proposition)? Seat-of-the-pants estimate? Informal survey? A detailed, statistically valid, study conducted by professionals? What?
I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen the premise expressed exactly the way you posit it, “The percentage of scientists who understand TTOE.” What percentage of the total are the scientists who understand the TOE? Some of my scientist acquaintances are given to insist that anyone who does not understand the TOE, is not really a scientist (they do allow for a slight variation from a categorical totality, accounting for the very few who do understand the theory but do not subscribe to it, but they also view such individuals with suspicion). So, does your study make any distinction with respect to who is considered a real scientist (aside from the obvious criteria)?
My scientist acquaintances, rather than express who are Judaeo-Christian and Scientist in terms of percentages, usually use the less precise terms “many”, or “most.” Do you understand the percentage who are Judaeo-Christian to be fairly uniform in its distribution across the various branches of science, or is there a fairly large percentage difference from one discipline to another? Does your study account for the relatively large number (or so I've been told) of Jews who are "secular" and without real religious ties? My understanding is that from 80 to 90 % of the American population is nominally Christian. What numbers does your study work with?
Anyhow, on what basis do you make your assertion?