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."
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.