Hubbry Logo
Project SteveProject SteveMain
Open search
Project Steve
Community hub
Project Steve
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Project Steve
Project Steve
Project Steve
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "[n]early all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."[2]

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which it turns out is roughly 1 percent of scientists,[1] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 54% of the listed Steves being biologists.[3] The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[4] As of February 12, 2024, Project Steve has 1,500 signatories.[4]

Statement

[edit]

The statement that signatories agree to reads:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design", to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

There have been some complaints that the statement left out the geological sciences, where evolution is an important principle as well. However, this oversight was noticed too late and it was decided that it would be more effort than it is worth to go back to correct it.[3]

History

[edit]

The project was named in honor of the paleontologist and essayist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002). It began in 2003, with an official press release on February 16, 2003.[5] The press release was issued at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 2003 convention in Denver, Colorado, after a lecture by Lawrence Krauss titled "Scientific Ignorance as a Way of Life: From Science Fiction in Washington to Intelligent Design in the Classroom." Krauss made the actual announcement and directed the reporters to NCSE Director Eugenie Scott, who was sitting in the audience in the front row.[6]

Nobel laureates Steven Weinberg (left) and Steven Chu (right) were among the first 100 signatures.

The original goal was to collect the signatures of 100 Steves, but this goal was reached in about 10 days. Both Nobel Prize-winning Steves in science — Steven Weinberg and Steven Chu (who has since served as Secretary of Energy in Barack Obama's Cabinet) — were among the first 100 Steves. Over 200 Steves responded in the first month.[6] As the news of Project Steve spread by word of mouth, ever-increasing numbers of Steves contacted the NCSE, and the list continued to grow.

Project Steve captured the attention of the media. The first media coverage included articles in the Washington Times, Science, the Oakland Tribune and an interview of NCSE director Eugenie Scott by Australian science journalist and radio broadcaster Robyn Williams for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s radio show, The Science Show. The Science Show arranged for Geoff Sirmai and David Fisher of the Australian musical comedy team "Comic Roasts" to write the "Steve Song", a parody of the Monty Python song about Spam, for Project Steve.[3][7] The song had its debut on The Science Show episode featuring the interview of Scott which aired on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National on March 8, 2003.[8]

Cambridge University Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking was the 300th Steve to sign the list. By the time the announcement was made on April 21, 2003, another five had joined to bring the total number of Steves to 305.[9] By December 26, 2003, Saint Stephen's Day, Project Steve had grown to 400 scientists.[10]

As Project Steve reached the 400 scientist mark, the NCSE decided to offer a commemorative novelty Project Steve t-shirt. The t-shirt is emblazoned with the proclamation, "Over _00 Scientists named Steve Agree, Teach Evolution!" in large letters, where the blank contains the most recent hundreds mark. A list of the current signatories is included in a smaller typeface on the t-shirt as well.

Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch and Nick Matzke published an article in the July/August 2004 issue of the Annals of Improbable Research (with all the Steves that had signed up to that point listed as co-authors) called The Morphology of Steve which contained "the first scientific analysis of the sex, geographic location, and body size of scientists named Steve".[11] The data were obtained using NCSE's "pioneering experimental steveometry apparatus"—the t-shirt.

Shortly after the second anniversary of Project Steve in February 2005, 543 Steves had signed the list. A front-page story in the Ottawa Citizen marking this event was published on February 20, 2005.[12] On September 12, 2005, the 600th Steve signed the list.[13] By February 16, 2006, the third anniversary of Project Steve's official launch, the Steve-o-meter stood at 700.[14] On April 24, 2007, the list had grown to 800 Steves.[15] In February 2009, the milestone #1000 was assigned to professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Steven P. Darwin (no relation to Charles).[16] Subsequent milestones were #1100 on August 25, 2009,[17] #1200 on April 6, 2012,[18] and #1300 on January 15, 2014.[19]

There have been articles about Project Steve in The Times,[20] Scientific American,[21] Yale Daily News,[22] Focus on the Family's Family News in Focus, The Guardian, MIT's TechTalk, and The Arizona Republic, among many others.[23]

Evolution

[edit]
Evolution of the number of Steves within Project Steve since its creation

Reactions

[edit]

William Dembski, fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" petition had eight Steves as of July, 2007,[24] has said that:

If Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies—that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution.[25]

Inspired by Project Steve, and motivated by media coverage of the Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwinism" list, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, R. Joe Brandon initiated a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution in October 2005. During the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists.[26] During the four days of the petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism received signatures at a rate 697,000% higher than the Discovery Institute's petition, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, according to archaeologist R. Joe Brandon.[27]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Project Steve

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Project Steve is a satirical petition initiated by the (NCSE) in 2003, comprising a list of living scientists bearing the given name "Steve" or close variants—such as Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, Stefan, or Esteban—who affirm that can be best understood through and other well-tested mechanisms of and large-scale evolutionary processes.

Named in tribute to the evolutionary , a prominent NCSE supporter, the project parodies creationist compilations of scientists purportedly skeptical of evolutionary theory, underscoring the disparity in numbers: the Steves alone exceed the total signatories on major dissenting lists, and given that individuals named Steve constitute roughly 1% of the , this implies broad consensus among scientists overall. As of February 2025, the list includes 1,500 signatories from diverse fields including , physics, and , with eligibility requiring relevant scientific credentials and explicit endorsement of evolutionary principles. While praised for highlighting empirical support for —rooted in extensive , genetic, and observational data—the initiative has drawn criticism from proponents for restricting signatories to a name subset rather than compiling a comprehensive pro-evolution roster, though NCSE counters that such exhaustive lists are unnecessary given the theory's foundational status in .

Context in the Evolution Debate

Scientific Consensus on Evolution

The scientific consensus, as articulated by leading institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences, holds that evolution by natural selection constitutes both a fact—evidenced by observable changes in populations over time—and a comprehensive theory explaining the diversity and adaptation of life through mechanisms including genetic variation, inheritance, and differential survival. This view is buttressed by converging lines of empirical evidence from fields including molecular genetics, which demonstrates shared DNA sequences across species consistent with common descent; the fossil record, revealing transitional forms and chronological patterns of complexity; and experimental observations of speciation in laboratory and natural settings, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or finch beak adaptations documented by Peter and Rosemary Grant on the Galápagos Islands since 1973. International bodies like the InterAcademy Partnership, representing over 100 national academies, endorse this framework in joint statements urging its teaching as established science, emphasizing that alternatives like creationism lack empirical support and testable predictions. Surveys of working scientists consistently quantify acceptance at near-unanimous levels among those in relevant disciplines. A 2014 poll of American Association for the Advancement of members found that 98% affirm that "humans and other living things have evolved over time," with acceptance exceeding 99% among biologists specifically. Earlier data from a 2009 Pew survey similarly reported 97% acceptance among scientists overall, rising to higher rates in life sciences. These figures contrast sharply with , where U.S. acceptance hovers around 60-80% depending on question phrasing, highlighting a disconnect often attributed to cultural and religious influences rather than scientific doubt. While pockets of exist, primarily questioning specific neo-Darwinian mechanisms like the sufficiency of random mutation and selection for , they represent a minuscule fraction of the and rarely originate from experts in . For instance, the Discovery Institute's "" petition, launched in 2001, garnered approximately 1,000 signatories by 2019, but fewer than 50 held PhDs in , comprising less than 0.01% of the roughly 500,000 biological scientists worldwide as estimated by professional societies. Such lists, while publicized to suggest , do not reflect peer-reviewed challenges to core evolutionary principles, as no credible alternative theory has gained traction in due to insufficient explanatory power for observed data like phylogenetic trees reconstructed from genomic alignments. Mainstream academic institutions, despite documented ideological skews toward progressive views that may marginalize heterodox positions, overwhelmingly uphold through rigorous, evidence-based vetting rather than suppression, as evidenced by the absence of successful paradigm-shifting publications contradicting it since the modern synthesis of the 1940s.

Creationist and Intelligent Design Lists of Dissent

The , a proponent of , launched "" in 2001 as a public statement signed by scientists expressing targeted skepticism toward neo-Darwinian mechanisms. The declaration specifically states: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the for Darwinian should be encouraged," without rejecting or outright. Signatories must hold doctoral-level expertise in relevant scientific fields, though the list encompasses diverse disciplines including physics, , and alongside . By 2019, the list surpassed 1,000 signers, a milestone highlighted by the Institute to underscore growing doubts about Darwinism's explanatory power. As of October 2025, it comprises approximately 1,130 individuals, with roughly 22.5% (254) affiliated with or sciences and the remainder from non-biological fields such as chemistry, , and . The maintains that these signatures reflect substantive scientific critique, often citing peer-reviewed papers on and as evidentiary support, though critics argue the dissent focuses narrowly on Darwinian sufficiency rather than evolution's core tenets. Young-earth creationist groups have assembled parallel lists emphasizing outright rejection of in favor of . For instance, organizations like and the Institute for Creation Research promote rosters of scientists—typically numbering in the dozens to low hundreds—who affirm and a recent earth, drawing from fields like and to challenge uniformitarian assumptions underlying evolutionary timelines. These compilations, dating back to the 1970s movement, prioritize Ph.D. holders with explicit young-earth views but remain far smaller in scale than efforts and often overlap with theological rather than purely empirical dissent. Such lists collectively serve to argue against portraying as uncontroversial, though their signatories constitute less than 0.01% of the global scientific workforce based on surveys of professional bodies like the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Origins and Launch

Announcement in 2003

Project Steve was publicly announced on February 16, 2003, via a press release on the (NCSE) website, marking the formal debut of the initiative as a of creationist compilations listing scientists who question Darwinian . At launch, the project featured 220 signatories—all scientists or science educators with doctoral degrees and first names of Steve, Steven, Stephen, or linguistic equivalents—affirming a statement that described as "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences" while rejecting creationism's intrusion into public education. The announcement highlighted the project's satirical intent: by drawing from a name pool representing roughly 1% of scientists, the 220 initial Steves extrapolated to an equivalent of approximately 22,000 supporting , dwarfing the hundreds on prominent skeptic lists like the Discovery Institute's "," which at the time included fewer than 100 Ph.D. holders in relevant fields. Named in honor of paleontologist , who died in May 2002 after staunchly defending education and supporting NCSE efforts, the project underscored Gould's legacy amid ongoing debates over teaching in U.S. schools. Theoretical physicist amplified visibility during his February 2003 lecture "Scientific Ignorance as a Way of Life" at a scientific meeting, where he referenced the nascent and urged reporters to contact NCSE for details, contributing to early media pickup. The whimsical framing—limiting signatories to Steves to poke fun at the perceived selectivity of opposing petitions—quickly drew attention, with signatures climbing to 290 by late and media outlets covering it as a clever demonstration of .

The Project Steve Statement

The Project Steve statement constitutes the core declaration endorsed by all signatories of the initiative, affirming as a foundational scientific principle while rejecting the pedagogical integration of creationist alternatives in public education. Drafted by the (NCSE), it explicitly counters lists compiled by creationist organizations purporting to demonstrate widespread scientific dissent from evolutionary theory. The full text, as published by NCSE, is as follows:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying of the biological sciences, and the is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of , there is no serious scientific doubt that occurred or that is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist , including but not limited to "," to be introduced into the curricula of our nation's schools.
The statement's first sentence underscores evolution's empirical foundation, citing its role in explaining biodiversity through —a position aligned with extensive , genetic, and comparative anatomical evidence accumulated since Charles Darwin's in 1859. The second acknowledges intra-disciplinary discussions, such as those on evolutionary rates or specific adaptive mechanisms, but firmly delineates these from foundational acceptance of descent with modification and , reflecting the near-unanimous consensus among biologists as documented in surveys like the 2014 poll where 98% of scientists affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science accepted . The final clause targets "creationist ," a term NCSE applies to approaches like that lack testable predictions or , as critiqued in federal rulings such as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), which found no peer-reviewed support for claims central to such views. Announced publicly on February 16, 2003, alongside the project's launch, the statement initially garnered over 200 signatures from eligible scientists named Steve or variants thereof, symbolizing broader support given that such names represent approximately 1% of the U.S. population. Its phrasing deliberately mirrors the assertive of opposing petitions, such as the Discovery Institute's "," to highlight asymmetry in scientific endorsement: by NCSE's estimate, the Steves alone outnumbered dissenters on such lists by over 12 to 1 at inception, extrapolating to thousands when scaled proportionally. This structure serves the project's satirical intent, named after paleontologist to evoke his defenses of evolutionary theory against pseudoscience, without diluting the statement's substantive claims grounded in peer-reviewed literature.

Methodology

Eligibility Criteria for Signatories

Eligibility for signing Project Steve was restricted to individuals whose is a variant of "Steve," including common forms such as Steven, , , Stefan, , Etienne, , Istvan, and Tapani, among others. This naming convention was chosen to represent approximately 1% of the U.S. population, allowing statistical extrapolation to broader scientific support for . Prospective signatories were required to be , though precise qualifications such as a mandatory PhD were not uniformly specified across project descriptions; however, accounts indicate a focus on those holding doctoral degrees, with approximately 60% of signatories possessing PhDs or positions in evolution-related fields as of 2012. The project emphasized practicing across disciplines, including notable figures like Nobel laureates and , who met the criteria and signed. All eligible individuals were obligated to endorse the project's core statement, which affirms: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools." Agreement with this statement, which underscores common descent, natural selection, and opposition to teaching pseudoscience in public schools, served as the substantive criterion beyond naming and professional status. The signature process involved self-nomination via email to the (NCSE), with no formal independent verification of credentials detailed publicly, relying instead on the among invited s. This approach facilitated rapid collection while maintaining the project's satirical intent to dissenting scientist lists by limiting the pool to a narrow demographic.

Signature Collection Process

The signature collection for Project Steve commenced in February 2003, initiated by the (NCSE) as a targeted response to creationist petitions questioning . NCSE staff began by emailing a select group of scientists bearing eligible names—such as Steve, Stephen, or variants like Stephanie and Stefan—soliciting their endorsement of the project's statement and requesting that they forward the invitation to additional qualifying colleagues. This chain-referral method, leveraging personal and professional networks, enabled rapid accumulation, yielding the initial 220 verified signatures within roughly one month. Following this organic start, NCSE formalized the process through public announcements and an ongoing invitation via its , encouraging eligible scientists worldwide to self-nominate. Prospective signatories submitted details by emailing NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch, including their full name, the granting institution and field of their (primarily Ph.D.s, supplemented by M.D.s or Ed.D.s), current institutional affiliation, and optionally significant publications or accomplishments. By providing this information and consenting to its use, submitters explicitly affirmed support for the core statement: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, nontheistic theory whose facts can be and have been empirically challenged and tested." NCSE implemented a verification step to uphold eligibility standards, with staff cross-checking reported degrees against institutional records and confirming professional scientific credentials, thereby excluding non-scientists or those outside relevant disciplines. This vetting ensured the list comprised only practicing scientists, with approximately 54% to 61% in biology or allied life sciences fields like medicine and ecology, while others hailed from physics, chemistry, and mathematics. The maintained roster, periodically updated on the NCSE site, reached 1,500 signatories by February 12, 2025, reflecting sustained interest without formal deadlines or campaigns.

Growth and Quantitative Results

Historical Milestones in Signatures

Project Steve's signature collection commenced with its public announcement on February 16, 2003, at which point more than 200 scientists bearing the name Steve (or variants such as Stephen, Stefan, and Steven) had affixed their signatures to the pro-evolution statement. By February 2006, coinciding with the project's third anniversary, the tally had reached approximately 700 signatories, reflecting steady accrual through online submissions and targeted outreach to eligible scientists. Subsequent growth accelerated modestly, with the list surpassing 600 signatures by September 12, 2005, prompting the (NCSE) to commemorate the occasion alongside earlier benchmarks like 400 signatories, for which novelty t-shirts were produced. By late December 2005, the count stood at 688. The project marked its 900th signatory on September 5, 2008, with the addition of Steven K. Nordeen, a . The milestone of 1,000 signatures, dubbed the "kilosteve" by NCSE, was achieved on February 12, 2009, underscoring the initiative's persistence amid ongoing debates over evolution education. Growth continued incrementally, reaching over 1,400 by early 2024. On February 12, 2025, the list attained 1,500 signatories, equivalent to the "1.5 kilosteve" threshold, as announced by NCSE. These benchmarks highlight a consistent, albeit gradual, expansion driven by voluntary endorsements from scientists meeting the criteria of name eligibility and relevant expertise in or .

Statistical Comparison to Opposing Lists

Project Steve's list comprises 1,500 signatories as of February 12, 2025, surpassing the 1,043 scientists who had signed the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" as of February 2019, with no major public expansions reported for the latter since a 2021 update. This comparison underscores the project's satirical intent: restricting eligible participants to individuals named Steve (or equivalents like Stephen or Stephanie), a name held by roughly 1% of scientists, yet yielding more adherents to evolutionary theory than the broader dissent petition.
ListTotal SignatoriesDate of CountNotes on Composition
Project Steve1,500February 2025Limited to Steves; ~67% biologists or biological field experts
1,043February 2019Open to any dissenting scientists; few biologists
Disciplinary focus further highlights disparities. Approximately two-thirds of Project Steve signatories hold relevant biological credentials, emphasizing expertise in the pertinent domain of . In contrast, the dissent list draws primarily from engineering, physics, and other non-biological disciplines, with the noting a of biologists among such opposing rosters—a pattern attributed to the consensus within biological sciences. The dissent statement itself expresses targeted skepticism toward neo-Darwinian mechanisms (random mutation and ) rather than rejecting or outright, potentially broadening its appeal beyond core evolutionary biologists. Earlier creationist compilations, such as those from organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, featured even fewer signatories—often under 700 total—and similarly underrepresented biological specialists, reinforcing the statistical edge of even a name-restricted pro-evolution tally. These metrics, while not exhaustive of scientific opinion, illustrate the relative scale of organized dissent versus a parody-constrained affirmation of mainstream .

Reactions and Criticisms

Endorsements from Evolution Supporters

Prominent physicists and , both Nobel laureates, endorsed Project Steve by signing its statement affirming as a well-supported scientific principle. , recipient of the 1979 , and , awarded in 1997 and former U.S. of , represent the high caliber of signatories who publicly supported the project's aim to counter creationist claims of scientific dissent. Their participation underscores the project's appeal to leading figures in science who view as undisputed. The project's core statement, signed by over 1,500 eligible scientists as of February 2025, declares: " is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the vast majority of scientists not only accept but indeed know a great deal about it." This endorsement highlights the signatories' consensus that drives biological change and that no significant scientific controversy exists regarding 's occurrence. Supporters, including approximately 54% in biology-related fields, emphasized the statement's role in demonstrating empirical backing from diverse disciplines. Evolution advocates, such as NCSE deputy director , have praised Project Steve for effectively parodying creationist petitions by amassing a list that, even limited to one name variant (representing about 1% of scientists), exceeds dissenting tallies, implying broad scientific agreement equivalent to at least 150,000 professionals. This quantitative edge has been cited as evidence of 's acceptance, prompting public scrutiny of opposing lists' scale. The initiative, named after —a vocal defender of evolutionary theory—further received implicit backing from the through rapid signature growth and media coverage affirming its satirical yet substantive point.

Critiques from Darwinism Skeptics

Darwinism skeptics, particularly those affiliated with the , have characterized Project Steve as a superficial effort that evades substantive scientific debates over neo-Darwinian mechanisms. , a senior fellow at the , argued in 2003 that the project merely reaffirms the broad consensus on biological change over time—descent with modification—which even most skeptics accept, but fails to address doubts about whether random and alone can account for macroevolutionary complexity. He contended that the statement's wording strategically affirms "evolution" in a vague sense without endorsing the specific, unguided processes central to , thereby establishing "the obvious" rather than resolving controversies. Critics further highlighted the project's selective scope as of its rhetorical nature. By limiting signatories to individuals named or variants, Project Steve amassed approximately 1,400 signatures by the mid-2010s, yet the 's "" petition, open to all qualified scientists, gathered over 1,000 signatures from PhD holders in relevant fields by 2023, suggesting organized persists despite the narrower Steve list. Mark Edwards, a spokesman, described it in 2003 as stating the obvious acceptance of while ignoring challenges to and specified information in biological systems, core arguments from proponents. Additional critiques from creationist outlets, such as Uncommon Descent, pointed to ironic underpinnings, noting that the project draws its name from , whom some peers labeled an "accidental creationist" for critiquing strict Darwinian gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibria—a position skeptics view as conceding Darwinism's explanatory gaps. These commentators argued that such tactics underscore an institutional reluctance in academia to engage empirically testable alternatives to , prioritizing consensus over causal analysis of origins. Overall, skeptics maintain that Project Steve exemplifies deflection rather than empirical rebuttal, as the dissent list's growth indicates nontrivial scientific questioning of Darwinian orthodoxy.

Impact and Legacy

Role in Public Discourse

Project Steve, initiated by the on February 16, 2003, emerged as a satirical in the ongoing public debate over and , particularly in response to lists like the Discovery Institute's "," which claimed to document toward . By limiting endorsements to scientists named Steve (or variants such as Stephen or Stephanie), the project humorously illustrated the robust consensus supporting as "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," while deeming creationist , including , "scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for public school curricula. This approach aimed to deflate the perceived legitimacy of minority dissent by demonstrating that even a narrow subset of scientists outnumbered broader lists of skeptics, thereby shifting public and media scrutiny toward questioning the representativeness of anti-evolution petitions. In public discourse, Project Steve has been invoked to emphasize the marginal nature of scientific opposition to , with its signatory count—reaching 1,488 by 2023—extrapolated to imply support from at least 148,800 scientists, far exceeding the roughly 1,000 signatories on major dissenting lists at comparable times. Media outlets and debaters have referenced the initiative to argue that enjoys near-universal acceptance among experts, countering narratives of promoted by advocates. For instance, it prompted questions in journalistic and policy discussions about the credentials and scale of purported scientific dissent, reinforcing arguments for exclusive emphasis on in science . Endorsements from prominent figures, such as psychologist describing it as "the most formidable weapon in the fight against neo-creationism today," underscore its rhetorical influence in framing the debate as one of overwhelming evidence versus fringe objection. Critics, including representatives from the , contend that the project sidesteps substantive challenges to Darwinian mechanisms by relying on numerical appeals to authority rather than engaging specific empirical doubts. Nonetheless, its enduring presence has contributed to a discourse where consensus on is presented as a settled scientific fact, influencing perceptions in educational policy and legal challenges to alternative theories.

Ongoing Maintenance and Recent Developments

The (NCSE) maintains Project Steve by reviewing and adding new signatories who meet the eligibility criteria, primarily scientists holding relevant degrees in fields such as and named Steve or variants thereof (e.g., Stephen, Stephanie, Stefan). Eligible individuals submit their full name, degree details ( and ), current affiliation, and optionally a notable achievement or publication via email to [email protected] with the subject "I want to be an NCSE Steve," after which NCSE verifies qualifications before inclusion. Approximately two-thirds of signatories hold Ph.D.s, with a focus on those endorsing as a foundational while rejecting its portrayal as in educational contexts. As of February 12, 2025, the project reached a milestone of 1,500 signatories, marked by the addition of Steven A. Wernke, Professor of and Department Chair at . This update reflects periodic accretions since the project's 2003 launch, with the total estimated to symbolize the support of roughly 150,000 scientists nationwide, based on U.S. Census proportions of individuals named Steve (about 1% of the population). The complete list remains publicly accessible on the NCSE website, underscoring the initiative's ongoing role as a satirical to broader lists of skeptics. No major structural changes or expansions to the project's scope have occurred since , though it featured in discussions at the Scopes Trial Centennial Symposium held July 12–13, 2025, at in collaboration with NCSE, highlighting its enduring relevance in debates over . Inquiries regarding maintenance or additions are directed to NCSE staff, such as Glenn Branch, ensuring vetting aligns with the original intent of limiting signatories to "Steves" to amplify statistical contrast with opposing petitions.

References

  1. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve
  2. https://ncse.ngo/twenty-years-project-steve
  3. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-steve-wars
  4. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-n-1500
  5. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0711608105
  6. https://www.interacademies.org/statement/iap-statement-teaching-evolution
  7. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/elaborating-on-the-views-of-aaas-scientists-issue-by-issue/
  8. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
  9. https://www.thecollegefix.com/more-than-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-from-darwinism-statement/
  10. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
  11. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/
  12. https://scienceandculture.com/2019/02/skepticism-about-darwinian-evolution-grows-as-1000-scientists-share-their-doubts/
  13. https://medium.com/scientists-free-from-religious/how-many-signers-on-the-a-scientific-dissent-from-darwinism-list-work-in-biology-7620b6858450
  14. https://creation.com/scientists-dissent-from-darwinism
  15. https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/1000-scientists-dissent-from-darwin/
  16. https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/2022/11/how-many-scientists-question-evolution/
  17. https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
  18. http://www.geotimes.org/may03/column.html
  19. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-n-1400
  20. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions
  21. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/ask-science.html
  22. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-n-900
  23. https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-n-1000
  24. https://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200601/0476.html
  25. https://cbn.com/news/us/1000-scientists-publicly-sign-dissent-darwinism-statement
  26. https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf
  27. https://www.discovery.org/a/1393/
  28. https://www.discovery.org/a/3714/
  29. https://uncommondescent.com/humor/ncses-project-steve-named-after-a-creationist/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.