As of October 2012, the NCSE list had 1229 names, compared with 840 on the Discovery Institute list. If we count only those persons on these two lists who had a Ph.D. degree and/or professional position in a core field closely related to evolution (Anatomy, Anthropology, Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Botany, Ecology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Neurophysiology, Paleontology, Physiology, Taxonomy, Virology or Zoology), who thus are particularly well-qualified to make such a declaration, then 683 (55.6%) of the names on the NCSE list were so qualified, compared with only 236 (28.1%) of the Discovery Institute list, according to a detailed check performed by the present author. If we then further limit the Discovery Institute core field list to those persons named Steve or one of the variants above, so that the size of this list can be directly compared with the NCSE core field list, then only two signers remain (in general agreement with the fact that persons named Steve or one of the above variants constitute roughly 1% of the U.S. population)
In this article they compared a list scientists signed, as doubting Darwinism, from the Discovery Insitute, to a list compiled for belief in evolution.
The evolutionist reponse was to create a "Steve" list in honour of Gould, to see how many Steves signed the affirmation that scientists believe evolution is a well supported fact, in so many words.
They then compared lists, and rejected many scientists on the discovery institute's list because those scientists weren't in a field that was part of evolution (non-overlapping magisteria one might say).
The objective was obviously to show that the "Steves" alone on the evo list would outnumber the Steves on the discovery list.
The conclusion was ultimately that a very, very tiny percentage of Steves doubt Darwinism. ("What If" it seems Ayala was very much in support of Darwinism from his quoted statement).
My analysis of this statistic, my critical analysis is that they did not seem to mention how many Steves did "NOT" sign the list. I would also say that it is a rhetorical device to limit the list to, "Steves" because of the possibility that there may simply by chance, be people without that name that doubt Darwinism, simply by happenstance.
Conclusion; It seems reasonable to me to at least suppose there is some possibility that if there was a number of scientists that didn't sign the Steve list, that they are at least harbouring some doubts about Darwinism, possibly. ("some" Steves might have NOT signed either list)
Is it a fair comparison then?
It seems to me there is a lot of room here for the possibility that people won't sign the Discovery Institute's list because of peer-pressure to conform to what science accepts, which is evolution, and it seems reasonable some Steves may not have signed the list. I would like to now how many Steves didn't sign the list.
Disclaimer; I think the article isn't without merit, in that it was clever to rule out those names that don't overlap with any area of evolutionary science.
Conclusion: I think the relevant figure is that 28% of scientists in the core fields of evolution doubt Darwinism. (my error, what can I say, I write fast but I also read fast.)
Disclaimer; I admit I haven't given great time to reading this article, as I thought that could be done more and discussed more during the topic, and I suspect there are people better qualified to understand the statistics than I.