Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 7, 2006 5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.
About 88 percent of Americans 18-29 years old were in support, along with 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independent voters.
Others who strongly support teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory include African-Americans (69 percent), 35-54 year-olds (70 percent) and Democrats (60 percent).
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn about such evidence," Luskin said.
The Discovery Institute noted Americans also support students learning about evidence for intelligent design alongside evolution in biology class – 77 percent.
Just over half – 51 percent – agree strongly with that. Only 19 percent disagree.
As WorldNetDaily reported, more than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution.
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
Actually, I think we do convince some influential lurkers that creationism is not a good subject to politicize. It's obvious that it would split the conservative base, but bring in no new moderates.
Some prominent conservatives talked positively about ID/creationism when the subject first came back up some time ago. Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, and others made some short comments that indicated they supported it. But some of them have specifically pulled away, and the rest are ignoring the subject.
The only actual ID supporter in the media that I know of is Michael Medved, who apparently has some close relationships with the Discovery Institute which started the latest round of this mess. And I'm sure that he's had an ear full, and hasn't brought the subject up again recently that I know of.
If we can just keep the Republicans away from this damaging subject, that's enough of a win to make me happy.
We don't have to have it. If we have many RNA sequences, we can test to a high degree of probability whether those sequences derive by mutation from a common ancestor, and even, in some cases, deduce what the sequence of that common ancestor is.
Besides, that is all statistical analysis and we all know what statistics is about.
I know what statistics is about. It appears to be to you some sort of obscure and vaguely disreputable black magic.
Anyway, it's not 'statistical analysis'. It's inference and logic.
There is data and fossils out there, it is just the erroneous and ridiculous conclusions the scientists come to that are in error.
This is just a rant, without any substance to back it up. You don't understand it, so you hate it.
You've clearly shown you don't know how scientists use genomics to examine universal common descent, so it's hard to see how your condemnation of our logic is worth much.
There is, however, no trail of DNA or fossil evidence between that ant and the first life forms, so you will have to believe it on faith.
We don't need it, as long as we have lots of other organisms derived from the common ancestor. Let me put it in terms you might understand. If you, and all your first cousins have blue eyes, would it be possible for you to deduce the eye color of your grandfather, even if you have never seen him?
Dr. Behe on the number of peer reviewed ID articles:
_____________________________________
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. [Behe] That is correct, yes.
save it, we all know what you think, but that does not change God's Word. He said that many who claim to be his would accept doctrines of devils in the last days.
Great, enterprising reporting, WND!
I don't know how that works -- should someone ping an admin mod when a thread title is a direct lie, saying the opposite of what the article does, like this one?
I think you could suggest to admin mod that the thread be moved to the Smoky Backroom for this reason. However, it is a WND article and many automatically discount it just for that reason.
Yes master....
You could still get a GED, you know!
ROFL!
Sorry, that just one of the more original misspellings. Carry on.
It's only contrary to those few lines between Genesis and Revelation.
Street Corner Preacher Placemarker.
I hope your right. Otherwise it's an amazing waste of bandwidth (repeatedly...another new thread just popped up).
Kinda like a fanatical Baptist.
Nope, tomorrow we are going to study a fact. Does change occur (evolution)?Class will be held at the library where we will have 10,000 books stating and supporting the evidence.
You are factually incorrect. Whether evolution theory is correct or not matters a great deal to the Biotech industry. Even financial planning and investment in that industry depend on the ability of viruses and other bugs to evolve tolerance.
Whether evolution occurs or not means billions, perhaps trillions to the huge biotech industry.
Most people who read horoscopes do it for amusement, and definately do not believe them. The real problem here is the people who read God's word but don't believe it.
lol. Yes, I'm just a hick, professor, certainly can't hold a candle to you.
:-)
I guess I won't go there.
I'll let this stand. It is interesting to see how many folks, from both sides, have come in and just reacted to the title without reading the article!
This will be a test to see who actually reads the article!
That's a personal comment that I take some offense to. Are you merely trying to pick a fight, or do you have some way to demonstrate that I actually "worship" the ACLU?
The ACLU does a lot of things I disagree with, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I rather enjoy these threads. They are very informative, especially Isch and RWP's posts.
I don't have much of a biology background aside from a few Freshman level courses so I rarely post on them, but I feel like I learn a lot from these threads. (I actually go read the links! :P)
I would say most people have just a fuzzy concept of what they do believe anyway.
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.