Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
How do you figure that?
In fact, since ID has *no* evidence supporting it, this poll comes down squarely against ID.
You answered your own question. Many evolutionists think ID is a Trojan Horse designed to further Creationisms. You may also. I agree that it is. That is why I say that many, probably most, of the respondents are more pro creation than pro ID or anti-evolution. That is why it is not academic but emotional, political, and philosophical and that is where most Americans are.
The big complaint is that evolution is a tool of the left to diminish the roll of religion in this country. The validity of evolution isn't the concern, it is the anti creation aspect that gives it is drive today. It is the traveling companion to the push to get all religious references out of courthouses, classrooms, etc. You are part of it, wittingly or not.
Gods *word* is interpreted differently by different denominations, some of which accept evolution. Are you saying this is not true?
I think that should be holy roll(er) of religion
No one likes the zealot atheist evolutionites because they are obnoxious and overbearing and now teaming up with the ACLU.
They claim to be pro-science but aren't and are really pushing their own liberal agenda vis-a-vis the culture war.
They have and are harming science including, irony of ironies, good evolutionary biological studies with their agenda driven overbearing attacks on anyone who doesn't share their close minded views.
Tallhappy, I have a question and a request for you.
Q: Do you agree with this statement, taken from the poll and which the presser touts as generating 69% agreement: "Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it"?
Request: If you do agree with that statement, then please give me some specific examples of scientifically valid & supported evidence against Darwinian evolution that you think should be taught to high school biology students.
Methinks I see a frequently repeated error here, unless Microgood is ignoring rather than forgetting about viral insertions.
I don't subscribe to Webster's totalitarian views on spelling. We have all of these keys, why exclude some of them just because they don't conform? En phakt eye'm gohing two liberait a foo ov thim rite hear.
Because it lacks evidence. This poll asked about evidence. It said most folks want all evidence taught.
That means they could not be IDers.
The validity of evolution isn't the concern, it is the anti creation aspect that gives it is drive today.
Do you mean that you don't care if it's true or not, because you see it as a political issue?
This is *science*. The validity of the theories is all that matters.
Are you disturbed by the original poster's putting up a title that says the opposite of what the poll and the article say?
Poll Question: Physics teachers should teach the law of gravity, but but also the scientific evidence against it.
A majority of reasonable people think "hmm, I think kids should hear any evidence against gravity - why hide any such evidence from them?" and so they answer "yes" to the poll question.
The man who claims invisible pink string holds people to the earth jumps up when he reads the poll results and shouts "AHA look! A majority of people want my alternative theory taught alongside gravity in schools!"
Actually before Christians accepted science and math they rode donkeys and lead goats.
While it is true liberals and some evo's attack the gospel, let's be clear. The evo / crevo debate has little to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ of whom I am a strong believer. It regards one's interpretation of Genesis which is from the Torah. While it is true that Jesus affirmed the OT scripture time and time again the gospel is not focused on creation but on sin, grace, faith, etc. Peace.
Exactly!
The orig poster put a title on this thread that says the opposite of what the poll and the article say!
This thread is a test to see who comes in and reads the article, v. who just reads the thread title!
You may be correct. It's difficult to tell the difference between the various ID/creationists without being able to see the numbers on their jerseys.
But since microgood apparently is ignoring my challenge to support his claim that "evolutionists violate all the rules of logic when coming to their conclusions", it does make sense that he would ignore the evidence presented about ERV insertions. This may rise to the level of "frequently repeated error".
I never herd (sic) of lead goats. Are they like a golden calf?
Your acceptance of your lowly station in life is praiseworthy. Now be a good hick, and don't bother me again.
But then I won't know how to emulate such an eminent evolutionist.
Actually, I am factually correct in my statement. Its just not an all encompassing statement. I am a Christian that believes in evolution as a process that certainly explains some changes in life. I just don't believe that it explains everything. However, to me, it is ultimately the origin of matter, not life that is most revealing.
I was making note that ID has a unique ability to get some people unraveled. I don't really think it has to do with their strict scientific requirements, as I don't see the same posts regarding other scientific theories that don't rise above assertion. 80% of the energy has all the appearances of being simply knee jerk rice bowl defensive tactics, aimed at those who would dare to question the orthodoxy of Darwinian evolution.
There is enough room in my heart for all of the huffers and puffers. I don't want anyone to feel left out.
I wish my latin was better,
I'd say something like 'reducto ad absurdum' (or was that Harry Potter?)
Regardless what I might believe personally, the evolution and only evolution group on FR appears to be terrified of being questioned and that suggests to me that there is a hole in their theory; perhaps larger than the obvious 'how'd it get started and what allows for the machinery of micro evolution?'.
Reducing the debate to likening 69% to 20% and then to Pi = 3.00 'because it's confusing' only underlines that observation.
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.