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."
What incredible snottiness. At least he's got better sense than to post his family's home address.
You never know who you're talking to on the internet.
Obviously the problem is not with science nor math, but with the very unscientific philosophy of evolution. Many things have been called scientific fact over the years, and even claimed to refute God's word, but more than 99% of those ideas ended up on the trash heap of science, which is where evolution belongs.
It's all right Mamzelle. I know I'm just a Creationist, and a GED is out of reach, but I can dream!
re: However, to me, it is ultimately the origin of matter, not life that is most revealing.)))
Indeed. Time matters.
There you go, using them highfalootin' words. Next time, stick to immanent and imminent, and stay away from eminent.
Interesting, considering all the crap we creationists get from so-called conservative evolution fanatics who claim that we are going to cost the Republicans votes by not bowing before the altar of Darwinianism.
See tag line.
I disagree.
Legerdemain, de man!
Are you familiar with error-correcting software algorithms?
Here are five versions of a word, each with one random error in a letter.
ENCYCLOPEDLA ENCYCLNPEDIA ENCYCLOPEJIA ENCYCNOPEDIA ENCYCLIPEDIASo what word is the common ancestor?
What if it disagrees with the genome tree (which it does in many cases)?
Can you cite an example?
I take it from your non-answer to my question you do agree that if you and all your siblings and first cousins have blue eyes, you can deduce your grandfather had blue eyes. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a picture of your grandfather to figure out his eye color. If you and your siblings and cousins are all white, I think it's fair to say he was white, too.And you may be familiar with genetic analysis of the royal families of Europe, which used the occurrence of hemophilia in descendants to deduce where the first mutation that caused the disease came from.
Logically, there is no available information that gets one back to a first singularity. Logic has to be bypassed to get there.
I'm trying to lead you, slowly, though that logic. But I can't lead you where you refuse to go.
"And you say you don't understand these things? But in fact, many people understand a great deal about them. So why is your lack of understanding somehow something you think other people should emulate?"
----------------
Do those 'many people understand' sufficiently to state for these observations of existence - which is more likely - 'evolved' or 'created'? I would be happy to emulate someone who could explain where it all came from.
And I thought we were making progress.
It's like spotting plagiarism or kids cheating on an exam. Both the presence and the location are relevant.
Total randomness is not, in fact, necessary.
Maybe I can get my mitts on some of them there ebonic textbooks. Do they cover evolution?
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?'.
Your phraseology suggests your position. To say that scientists, who comprise many of the 'group' you refer to here on FR, are 'terrified' of questions belies a misdunderstanding of how science works.
And aren't you overlooking the anti-evolution group that is terrified of the Theory of Evolution and that is hysterical about it because they think it questions, contradicts, and undermines their religious beliefs? Just on this thread a poster likened evolution to an 'out and out' war against a particular religious belief.
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.