Originally Posted by
Bearpaw
My guess, the scientific expert opinion majority which Guisslapp bases his support for evolution is based on several surveys of possibly up to 10K persons each, with either set multiple choice questions being asked (a definite bias in setting the questions), or an open answer to a question (bias on recording the results) based on a biased decision of who to poll. Out of the possible 10K polls sent out, probably 9.5K return with definite answers. Based on the 9.5K responses, a statistical analysis is done on the results.
If answer 1 was yes to evolution, 2 pretty sure, 3 undecided, 4 unsure, 5 no to evolution, and if 60% of the responses are received as 1 as their answer, 30% as 2, and the other 10% as 3-5, then the pollster can say that 90% of scientists believe evolution to be fact based on overwhelming evidence. Say 1000 surveys are done with the same number of scientists being polled, and there is a 25% chance of having overlapping responses from the same scientist. As checking to make sure such overlap is very difficult, it is overlooked. Questions may be slightly altered, etc. After these results come in, and then averaged with the initial survey, we have 75% of responses that evolution is a fact. This statistic is then applied to the total number of scientists in the world, or country (say 10Million scientific experts), and the pollster/interpreter of the survey believes it is factual that 7.50Million out of 10 million scientists believe that evolution is factual. When, taking this example into account, a maximum of 1Million scientists (i.e. 10K each survey, 1000 similar surveys performed) have been polled, and only approximately 750K of them agreed. Thus, 6.25Million scientists are assumed to agree, and 2.75Million scientists are assumed to disagree (again assuming no overlap).
Such statistical analysis is applied to almost every interpretation of an observation for science. With limited observations, limited times observed, and over a limited period, us scientists often assume such information is representative of the true picture. And often, we are spoon-fed such results, and because it somewhat makes sense, we believe it.