Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Poll on Evolution
Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?
You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; id
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,601-1,636 next last
To: PatrickHenry
However, it's been demonstrated rather conclusively that what's called ID today is really just a disguised form of creationism.

Agreed, also with the rest of your comment. I'm just in an expansive mood tonight.

Opening new business so I'm stoked!

51 posted on 09/22/2006 4:48:51 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
I vote

I don't believe the FR is a Libertarian site.

52 posted on 09/22/2006 4:52:21 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Only stupid people would vote for McCain, Warner, Hagle, Snowe, Graham, or any RINO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Wow. Those numbers came out just about how I expected them to come out, and they mirror pretty closely GOP opinion polls.

It seems this poll is pretty darn accurate, which is surprising given it's been done on the web.

But then again, it's not all that surprising that freeper opinion would mirrow broader GOP opinion. We pro-science conservatives have our work cut out to make our party the voice of reason once again.

53 posted on 09/22/2006 4:53:00 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
We pro-science conservatives have our work cut out to make our party the voice of reason once again.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Long road ahead.

/hmm. maybe I'm not being nice
//Oh well. Nobody's perfect.

54 posted on 09/22/2006 4:56:49 PM PDT by Wormwood (Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter because nobody listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Wow. Those numbers came out just about how I expected them to come out, and they mirror pretty closely GOP opinion polls.

At the moment, 33% of registered freepers are voting "No." That is, to keep creationism and ID out of science class. I wish it were more, but I'm pleasantly surprised that a third of freepers are of that opinion. Well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. My pro-evolution ping list is one of the biggest lists on this website, currently pushing close to 400 names. There are bigger lists, but the evo list is one of the biggies. Or so I'm told.

55 posted on 09/22/2006 4:59:31 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A lot of liberals are creationists too. Especially do-gooders. I think this is one of the issues that cross politics.
56 posted on 09/22/2006 5:04:29 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; All
A better poll, and more pertinent to Free Republic would have been:

Do you believe the theory of evolution is an important topic for the advancement of conservative principles?

Yes
No
Undecided
Not worth discussing

The current poll is a very narrow window of interest for most FReepers.

57 posted on 09/22/2006 5:08:47 PM PDT by NewLand (Always Remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

<img src = "http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c351/BrianSapient/creationism.gif


58 posted on 09/22/2006 5:11:08 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (I was in the house when the house burnt down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Do'h!


59 posted on 09/22/2006 5:11:50 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (I was in the house when the house burnt down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'd rather vote for Nancy Pelosi as Queen of the USA than let you have any say in how I educate my children.


60 posted on 09/22/2006 5:11:59 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The idea of conduction such a poll is equivalent to endorsing the idea of teaching what is popular, not the consensus of those working in the field. Perhaps this does represent Conservatism as it has become.


61 posted on 09/22/2006 5:13:22 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Why do you think you need to post them over and over again? Posting them again and again and again, well, that's just spam.

He keeps posting them because the Creationists keep posting the same stupid, deliberate misrepresentations and mental flatulence again and again. I admire his tenacity, but he is unlikely to ever penetrate the cement-like, militant ignorance of a Creationist.

62 posted on 09/22/2006 5:15:10 PM PDT by RogueIsland (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
BUMP YOUR POST! In the meantime...

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?

Composite Opinion
Yes 57.8% 748
No 32.6% 422
Undecided 5.6% 73
Pass 4.0% 52
100.0% 1,295
Member Opinion
Yes 55.4% 444
No 33.0% 265
Undecided 6.9% 55
Pass 4.7% 38
100.0% 802
Non-Member Opinion
Yes 61.7% 304
No 31.8% 157
Undecided 3.7% 18
Pass 2.8% 14
100.0% 493

63 posted on 09/22/2006 5:16:38 PM PDT by onyx (1 Billion Muslims -- IF only 10% are radical, that's still 100 Million who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Are they also going to give equal time to other creation myths from Scientology, Raelism, Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, Norse mythology, etc?

But of course. People are often granted what they think they wish for.

64 posted on 09/22/2006 5:16:39 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Evolution including the intelligent design variant of it should remain with the sciences.

Darwinism should be taught as part of the religion and philosophy curriculum.

Why didn't you include that as an option?

65 posted on 09/22/2006 5:18:48 PM PDT by JCEccles ("Islam. No religion demands more of others and less of itself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texten

"Freeping" a poll means voting many times to affect the result or to destroy the validity of the poll. It is one of lessons that Free Republic learned from Mayor Daly the Elder.


66 posted on 09/22/2006 5:19:18 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Evolution including the intelligent design variant of it should remain with the sciences.

Right after teaching the astrology variant.

67 posted on 09/22/2006 5:21:21 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

"Conduction" should be "Conducting."


68 posted on 09/22/2006 5:22:05 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I'd rather vote for Nancy Pelosi as Queen of the USA than let you have any say in how I educate my children.

Libertarian home-schooler?

69 posted on 09/22/2006 5:25:21 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
I vote

I don't believe the FR is a Libertarian site.

ok

does anyone knows what this means??

70 posted on 09/22/2006 5:25:34 PM PDT by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"Conduction" should be "Conducting."

Conducteosity?

71 posted on 09/22/2006 5:26:01 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Modern biology is like ancient biology. Biology hasn't changed.

So, what is it you would like to state ~ maybe that the principles of evolution are TAUGHT as part of a program of education in biology and biological processes?

BTW, if you really did need a "base" for understanding bilogy, I'd think you'd have to have CHEMISTRY under your belt first before you got into the metaphysics of evolutionary processes.

72 posted on 09/22/2006 5:26:27 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Catholic school. American by birth conservative by choice.


73 posted on 09/22/2006 5:27:41 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
I don't believe the FR is a Libertarian site.

I don't either. Of course, having posters endorse Pelosi's views over those of long-time conservative activists doesn't tend to make FR look conservative either.

74 posted on 09/22/2006 5:28:12 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
The idea of conduction such a poll is equivalent to endorsing the idea of teaching what is popular, not the consensus of those working in the field. Perhaps this does represent Conservatism as it has become.

Yes, but somehow the poll topic become an issue in various political campaigns, so even though I think the whole thing is misguided, it's important to the success -- or failure -- of Republicans. For example: [Michigan Gov. Candidate] DeVos says he wants intelligent design taught in science classes.

75 posted on 09/22/2006 5:29:12 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Catholic school. American by birth conservative by choice.

Of course, you realize that curricular standards are established by the public (actually the State), right?

76 posted on 09/22/2006 5:31:19 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Modern biology is like ancient biology. Biology hasn't changed.

The study of it or biology itself? The study has changed significantly -- we know a lot more now than we did.

77 posted on 09/22/2006 5:32:48 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Evolution including the intelligent design variant of it should remain with the sciences.

Darwinism should be taught as part of the religion and philosophy curriculum.

Why didn't you include that as an option?

Ugghhh, PH didn't create this poll.

And I'm interested in this distinction you've made between 'evolution' that should 'remain with the sciences' and 'Darwinism'. Please explain.

78 posted on 09/22/2006 5:33:23 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Of course, you realize that curricular standards are established by the public (actually the State), right?

Of course which is why I oppose federal intervention in local school curricula and neo Darwinists support it.

79 posted on 09/22/2006 5:35:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
But then again, it's not all that surprising that freeper opinion would mirror broader GOP opinion.

Well, there's a suprise! Free Republic opinion reflects mainstream conservative opinion nationwide.

No kidding.

What do you expect from the #1 conservative website on the planet?

You just cannot handle being an insignificant special interest group. You should be happy that you have a 'big tent' to operate in within the Republican Party.

We pro-science conservatives have our work cut out to make our party the voice of reason once again.

Now that's a statement that smacks of narrow minded liberal tactics.

I'm not suggesting you should leave, but it would be interesting to see the results of the exact same poll on a liberal website.

80 posted on 09/22/2006 5:36:01 PM PDT by NewLand (Always Remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Coyoteman
Of course which is why I oppose federal intervention in local school curricula and neo Darwinists support it.

What in the world is a "neo Darwinist?"

You guys are going to have to start posting definitions like Coyoteman does.

81 posted on 09/22/2006 5:37:53 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
I'm not suggesting you should leave, but it would be interesting to see the results of the exact same poll on a liberal website.

Probably almost exactly inverted. Hard to say what is sadder.

82 posted on 09/22/2006 5:39:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
You really have to be clear in these matters. Biology hasn't changed for the last 4 or 5 billion years. I suspect it had some minor changes when the speed of light was last adjusted.

The course work has changed.

83 posted on 09/22/2006 5:41:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I suspect it had some minor changes when the speed of light was last adjusted.

Didn't that get overturned by the 9th Circuit? ;)

84 posted on 09/22/2006 5:42:47 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Probably, but that part was hidden from the view of the Hubble telescope by the space/time dilation factor.


85 posted on 09/22/2006 5:43:36 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Probably, but that part was hidden from the view of the Hubble telescope by the space/time dilation factor.

I think a little work on the Hiesenberg Compensaters should clear that right up.

86 posted on 09/22/2006 5:44:36 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I have a cat in a box. He's either alive or dead. Let's set off this thermonuclear warhead I happen to have handy and see what happens.


87 posted on 09/22/2006 5:47:37 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Probably almost exactly inverted.

Definitely. What does that tell you?

From a political priority perspective, you must agree this is way down te list.

We have a lot of work to do. Keep the issue in proper perspective.

88 posted on 09/22/2006 5:53:03 PM PDT by NewLand (Always Remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I voted no.

Whatever ID may be, it's not yet science. With all the court losses and more and more school and state government boards of education rejecting "critical thinking" and alternate theories language in their standards, ID is a joke. A preconceived set of conclusions in search of a theory.

89 posted on 09/22/2006 5:59:04 PM PDT by AtomicBuffaloWings (Still not hot enough, A few of my taste buds are still alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Don't worry about the terms. Do you support or oppose federal intervention in local school curricula?


90 posted on 09/22/2006 6:02:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
From a political priority perspective, you must agree this is way down te list.

It is very important, since it makes Conservatives look anti-science and promotes willful ignorance as a Conservative Value.

We have a lot of work to do. Keep the issue in proper perspective.

Stopping the dumbing down of America should be one of our top priorities.

91 posted on 09/22/2006 6:04:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Do you support or oppose federal intervention in local school curricula?

Generally speaking, I oppose federal intervention in ANYTHING other than war. But I think national standards are a good idea -- just not ones imposed by the gummit.

92 posted on 09/22/2006 6:05:41 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Generally speaking, I oppose federal intervention in ANYTHING other than war.

Me too.

But I think national standards are a good idea -- just not ones imposed by the gummit.

Who sets the "national standards" and for what?

93 posted on 09/22/2006 6:07:06 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Who sets the "national standards" and for what?

I think there is a committee or group or something.

If you didn't have national standards for curriculum you wouldn't be able to move from state to state if you had kids -- they wouldn't be at the same relative level.

94 posted on 09/22/2006 6:10:30 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

"Modern biology is like ancient biology. Biology hasn't changed."

Wrong. Ancient "biology" was belief that sickness was due to the devil. Modern biology is very materialist. Ancient biology was superstitious and belief in a supernatural driving force and either praying or sacrifice would resolve material things.


"So, what is it you would like to state ~ maybe that the principles of evolution are TAUGHT as part of a program of education in biology and biological processes?"

The principles of evolution cover all aspects of modern biology. Indeed, without it, biology would not be like today.


"BTW, if you really did need a "base" for understanding bilogy, I'd think you'd have to have CHEMISTRY under your belt first before you got into the metaphysics of evolutionary processes."

Evolutionary processes is not metaphysics. Belief in an intelligent creator that created humans and "gave" him 2 legs to stand on, however, is.

Intelligent design process: = humans are given two arms for handling things and two legs for mobility.

Evolutionary process = quadpedal primates turned into bipedals due to the adaptation to the (changing) natural environment(desertification of eastern Africa) and the need to stay ahead of savanna predators.


95 posted on 09/22/2006 6:17:17 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Evolution including the intelligent design variant of it should remain with the sciences.

Darwinism should be taught as part of the religion and philosophy curriculum.

You are one mixed up puppy!

Intelligent design is an offshoot of creation "science" made necessary when the Supreme Court in the late 1980s tossed it out of the schools for being religion.

In order to circumvent that ruling, {poof!}, ID is hatched. The Wedge Strategy lays out the entire plan.

On the other hand, science has roundly castigated ID for not being science. So, I think your claim that ID is a variant of evolution is properly debunked.

Then you cite Darwinism as religion and philosophy. You can make any claim about Darwinism you want, as I don't know anyone who does science who falls in that category. I know a couple of paleoanthropologists and biologists, and I have read the works of a lot of other 'ologists, but not a one of them claims to be a Darwinist. When I studied evolution and related matters in grad school, I never once heard the term "Darwinist" in six years of study.

I think you are arguing from religious conviction rather than anything that has to do with science.

Perhaps when you make these claims which are contradicted by science, you could just preface them with "My religion tells me..." If you do that, none of the scientists on these threads will bother to rebut you. But when you make what appear to be scientific claims based only on your religious beliefs, you can expect to be challenged.

96 posted on 09/22/2006 6:24:26 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You just don't get it, do you?


97 posted on 09/22/2006 6:25:52 PM PDT by NewLand (Always Remember September 11, 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
You just don't get it, do you?

Get what?

98 posted on 09/22/2006 6:27:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
but don't cram it down kid's throats, don't require them to believe it to pass the course, and don't get preachy about it or ridicule them for their religious beliefs.

The kids don't have to believe evolution to pass high school biology. They do have to know and understand what it says, though.

And unless the child was brandishing his religion as an excuse to not learn the subject matter, I would oppose any science teacher that made an issue of a student's beliefs. Even in such a case, ridicule would still be out of line.

99 posted on 09/22/2006 6:36:17 PM PDT by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Yeah, we don't need the votes of that 30% of self described conservative people. They can't be 'real' conservatives. Those atheists will get what's coming to them when they die. Real conservatives know creationism trumps science. Let's just dump them. And then after we win the election we can.....
100 posted on 09/22/2006 6:41:57 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,601-1,636 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson