If you place a percentage on what constitutes "many", perhaps. Otherwise, any number greater than "few" would be many. You will notice I avoided percentages, mainly because I don't know them, but I agree "most" agree with evolution, even without percentages. If you have 100,000 scientists and 12,000 disagree with evolution, that isn't very few. It's a lot of people, thus my usage of the word "many".
Scientific studies like computer science and non-organic chemistry that conveniently don't need evolution to make sense.
You realize this isn't the random posts thread?
Seems pretty on topic to me.
Okay...let's stop right there. Just be straightforward. No need for snarky comments.
Kerdy, I disagree with your assertion of "many". Very few, if at all, disagree with evolution. Even one of the ring leaders of Intelligent Design, Dr. Michael Behe, who Johnson depended on in scientific terms of "irreducible complexity" actually does not disagree with the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor.
We have to define "scientist". This is besides the definition of "science" to begin with, and what defines as "science". If you are to, for instance, agree with the vast majority of scientists on how to define "science", then by all means, even a seriously believing Christian would reject Intelligent Design as "science" because this compromises the nature of God as "falsifiable" and "testable", which is blasphemy! But, entertaining the thought, if we were to take a statistical poll of scientists, and only ask those in life and earth sciences of their professional opinions, we find that according to Newsweek poll in 1987, 700 out of 480,000 give credence to creation science, which is only about .01% of that particular population. According to the National Center for Scientific Education, a 1991 gallup poll that included biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers showed only 5% saw credence to creation science.
It's only in high school biology where we find about 15-20% of biology teachers teaching creationism, according to a 2011 article. So here is where we have the dilemma.
So then, what is "many" and what is "scientist" seems to be quite relative in this issue. I think the best thing is this. If there are people serious about understanding where highly qualified biology and earth scientists are so overwhelmingly pro-evolution, one has to study what they study in depth, or at least read some of their "easy to read" books on the subject. Even I don't consider myself as expertise as these scientists who specialize particularly in it, but I've learned and read enough to be convinced (which I know is not saying much), and if I do subspecialize in clinical genetics, oncology, infectious disease, or immunology/allergist, perhaps this is where I will apply more of evolutionary knowledge in these situations.