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."
Should their views be considered when teaching economics?
Who's money is it?
Who's money pays for the teaching?
And, neither of the two popular sides in this current debate are using that method...
You are, of course, grossly mistaken in that claim. Evolutionary biology follows the methods of science. If you don't think so, then you have been sorely deluded by dishonest sources, and you should stop relying upon them.
[First, the scientific method is a way to arrive at answers.]
And, neither of the two popular sides in this current debate are using that method...
See above. The vast amounts of scientific research which has been done in the field of evolutionary biology does not vanish just because you stamp your feet and declare that it doesn't exist. Where on Earth are you getting your bizarre falsehoods? Where did you "learn" this nonsense you spew?
It just so happens that the lack of logic is weighted heavier with the zealotry of evolutionists.
That's pretty funny coming from the guy who then goes on to say a couple of remarkably illogical things:
[There is a lot more scientific evidence for common ancestors of apes and humans than there is for aliens starting life on earth.]
No, there is not.
Okay, I'll bite -- what then is this vast evidence "for aliens starting life on earth" which exceeds the great amount of evidence for common ancestry of man/apes? We'll wait.
I will give just a few concrete facts... Humans are the only creatures that have: ...actually journeyed off this planet ...devised artificial transportation. ...conquered disease. ...not remained naked. ...artificially enhanced their sensory capabilities. ...become dissatisfied with their own mortality.
Yeah, so? What does that have to do with the subject you were allegedly attempting to respond to?
I could go on with the facts, but why bother?
Indeed, why bother, because all of those are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the point you are (lamely) attempting to "refute". You rail about "logic", then don't seem capable of mustering any yourself when you make the effort. *None* of the things you list indicate that man could not be related to the other apes. At most it could just demonstrates that we are very capable apes, but no one would dispute that point. That does not, however, in any logical way, refute any of the vast evidence which indicates that we are, indeed, related to the other apes. So where then is your vaunted "logic", and where do you get off accusing *us* of a lack of it?
You are too busy with your own immaculate conceptions.
You're too busy rambling about not being naked to actually discuss the evidence in a rational way.
While you are bashing the creationists and defending the sucking up of their grant money
Creationists have grant money?
to actually find answers, you forgot logic - - which is the foundation of the scientific method.
We haven't forgotten logic at all. We continue to use it, while you labor under the bizarre notion that not being naked is some kind of "logic" which negates vast amounts of DNA and other evidence which clearly indicates that we share common ancestry with the other apes.
Try again when you have a clue what logic actually is, and how it is actually employed, and are willing and/or able to actually discuss the evidence and not go off on rants about "immaculate conceptions" and "artificial transportation"...
Who's money is it? Who's money pays for the teaching?
Hey, I have a novel idea -- why don't you actually answer the question?
I find it amusing that people who possess no knowledge at all of modern biology can confidently predict where it will be in 20 years. Amusing, but a little sad. And your inability to learn from the past is almost as sad. You repeatedly misforecast the outcome of the Dover trial, remember. Didn't that make you reconsider the wisdom of such prognostications? Or are you simply relying on the fact that in 20 years, no one will remember or care what you said?
So if it isn't found yet, how could we teach it? "Well, here's the scientific evidence of evolution. Uh, well, we don't have any, but we're confident some will be found!"
(Shakes head)
You had one? Really?
It's not a matter of "knowing". There are many mechanisms by which populations would end up migrating to regions with more suitable climates, without having to "know" anything about the relationship between latitude and temperature.
Additionally, some animals *do* "know" this, because it's part of their instincts. Quite a few animals already migrate north/south with the seasons in order to track seasonal changes. In the case of climate change, they'd just migrate further south in the fall and not as far back north in the spring.
It wouldn't surprise me if a few severe winters in a row could wipe out a species.
In certain cases, it can. But for the most part, life is pretty resilient.
How long would it take an animal to starve to death? Or freeze to death? Less time than it would take to walk or crawl to FL.
Yes, but you're missing that takes far longer for *every* member of a species to keel over and die. Some will already be at a more southern extent of the species's range, for example. Others will already have a bit more cold tolerance than their cousins. Others will by chance be in a valley or other protected area where the winter's effects won't hit quite as hard. Etc., etc.
Also, I'm not implying that it's always worldwide. There can certainly be sudden local occurrences that could wipe out a species.
Only if that species is itself quite local. And sometimes that does happen, and such species are more vulnerable to being wiped out by changing conditions. But more often, there is enough wide ranging variation of some sort (in geographic coverage, or genetic predisposition, or many other kinds) that hard times (be they due to climate change, or countless other kinds) may kill off many of the species, but most often *some* of them make it through, and generally the ones that do are the ones which have variations which gave them a leg up over their now dead cousins. They might already live further south in times of cold climate, for example, or they may have genetic variations which had already caused them to be somewhat more furry, something that wasn't very significant until the climate turned cold, and suddenly they find themselves to be the survivors in the "survival of the fittest" -- in times of killing cold, those who are more furry are now more "fit" to survive. And they will pass on their furry genes to their descendants. Rinse, repeat.
It seems that there are just too many variables working against evolution and even the survival of species to make it believable.
It may intuitively "seem" that way, but the point of the scientific method is that one has to test one's ideas about what "seems" to be reasonable by eventually going out and comparing it against the real world (whether by field study, or experiment, or some other method). And in the case of countless studies of how species actually do respond to real-world changes in climate or other kinds of shifting conditions, evolutionary scenarios keep passing the test with flying colors.
And around the circle we go!
It's only the pre-determined target because we have a monstrous mound of evidence saying it is a reasonable target. Because we have this monstrous mound of evidence, if we get one little widget of evidence that's a bit confusing, it makes sense to think about a way in which it fits into the monstrous mound of evidence without disturbing it.
Now in order to show this is unreasonable, please show how common descent is unreasonable and how there is an alternative equally reaonable theory to explain that monstrous mound of evidence (besides "God arbitrarily decided to make it look like that to test our faith", i.e., God lied).
Indeed. On a similar point, I haven't had time to participate in this thread much, nor even the time to read back through it all now, but I've been wondering if anyone has asked the following yet: Now that a bunch of folks want "alternate theories" to be taught in class, has anyone asked them exactly *what* alternate theories they're talking about? Unless someone has come up with one finally when I wasn't looking, there *aren't* any "alternate theories". There are a lot of alternate *speculations*, of course, but none at all that actually rise to the level of a *theory*, in the same way that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory...
Furthermore, even if we lower the standards and allow alternate *speculations* to be taught, what, exactly, would be the curriculum for "ID" or whatever they want to label it this week? What in the heck are they going to teach as the positive evidence in favor of "ID", when there *isn't* any? (Hint for the slow kids in the class: Alleged evidence *against* evolution is *not* evidence *for* ID -- epistemology doesn't work that way.) You can't "support" ID through a process of elimination, nor by invoking the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy (which goes, "since *I* can't think of any other way this could have happened, it *must* have happened the one way I *can* think of...)
I'm just dying to see what these folks imagine a curriculum for their favorite "alternate (non)theory" would look like. Other than the usual, of course: "we hate the idea of evolution, so kids, please consider the following possibility even though it's unsupported by the evidence..."
Please do not feed the red-herring spewing troll. Thank you.
A few years back, Andrew C was convinced he had found an anomaly that would bring evolution down. He'd found a gene which looked to be more similar in chickens and humans than it was in mice and humans. He'd actually learned to use BLAST and compare sequences: very impressive, given that very few creationists do their own research. At the time, I didn't know how to use any of these tools, and was comparing sequences by hand; but indeed, the three genes were as he said they were. Anyway, after some digging around, I discovered he was using the wrong mouse gene. There was a second, more distantly related homolog on the X-chromosome, IIRC. When you found the right mouse gene, indeed mice and humans looked like they'd diverged after the two had separated from chickens.
Instead of learning the right lesson: that by, and large, if there's a well established theory and you find what looks like a significant anomaly, it's most likely you made a mistake, he's instead convinced that evolution has immunized itself against such anomalies. That's a shame. One should always be able to admit one's errors.
:)
Congratulations! I admire your initiative.
You had something similar to this last time I saw you post this, but it somehow got lost this time. Got to do better than that!
You are right! I didn't save it down. I'll fix it with this:
There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"
After seeing these pix; do you?
Jesus smacked in new Judean poll!! (69% of people want alternate criminal released from death!)
Woo-hoo, go PEOPLE POWER!
He(?) shudda stopped with the middle metamorphis!
And he paid for it.
Not quite yet...
I don't think that 69 percent want intelligent design taught. They would like to know what other theories are out there. So would I.
If somebody can come up with something that holds together better under study, makes more sense, and explains what we see around us half so well as evolution/Darwinism -- I say, bring it on!
Matthew 19:4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
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.