Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)

WorldnetDaily.Com ^ | 03/07/2006

[Antonello]

A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.

So what exactly is the empirical evidence against evolution? And 'dunno how it happened so Goddidit' is not evidence.

[Dominic Harr]

So you would support the teaching of evidence that questions the T of E then?

Absolutely! And almost all scientists agree. Hence this poll.

The ToE isn't 100% perfect, and no one would claim it is.

Only by finding the holes and researching them can the theory be improved.

This poll does not say what you think it says.

People believe all evidence both for and against all theories should be taught.

But the key word is, "evidence". ID so far, has none. If you come up with any, then it *should* be taught.

[tallhappy]

Thanks. But simply pointing this out makes one a flat earth belieiving six day 6000 year old earth believer by fiat to some of the zealots here.

Doesn't matter if you've never ever said anything supportive of that belief, simply not being part of the hallelujah chorus of the Bible is stupid and Darwin proves it brands you as one.

Only in ultra lib thought and agenda have I seen such close minded demagoguery as so many here on this board on the "crevo" threads partake in.

[verity]

Polls

[Dominic Harr]

Has there been a Freeper poll on this issue? It would be interesting to see the results.

I doubt it -- this doesn't mean what some folks are pretending. Most Evo's would say yes to this poll.

All evidence should be taught.

No one ever claimed otherwise.

This poll is *not* about ID. Since ID has no evidence to support it, they weren't even asked about ID.

[Potowmack]

"In the '20s, scientists worldwide vigorously debated the mechanisms of evolution. On one side were the Darwinians; on the other were supporters of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, an 18th-century French scientist who believed that new physical traits could be willed into existence. According to Lamarck, a change in the environment causes a change in an animal's behavior that leads to greater or lesser use of a given appendage or organ. Those changes are passed on to the creature's offspring. Lamarck could not prove his theory, and by the '30s most geneticists had discarded the idea.

Lamarck's ideas were useless to geneticists but very handy for Joseph Stalin, who rejected any doctrine -- like Darwinism -- that challenged socialism. Willful ideology, not genetic determinism, was the key to his Soviet revolution. Stalin named a crop biologist, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, to champion Lamarckism. Lysenko and his ilk linked "the survival of the fittest" to fascism and accused Soviet geneticists of sabotage, espionage, and terrorism. Supporters of evolution were jailed or shot. Scientific publishing was censored. According to historians, no genetics textbooks were published in the USSR between 1938 and the early 1960s and no evolution at all was taught to several generations of students. Stalin's political solution choked off scientific progress, modern genetics never reached the Soviet Union, and today Russia and the Balkans lag behind other countries in scientific and medical advances. "

http://www.edutopia.org/magazine/ed1article.php?id=Art_1314&issue=jun_05

[Potowmack]

how did it always exist? that's not a logical concept. everything has to have a creator or catalyst.

Why?

[narby]

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 ...

Zogby is a famous lefty poll. No doubt they're hoping Republicans will fall for this gambit and push creationism, a guaranteed road to political defeat.

Remember the re-election rate of the Dover school board.

[newcthem]

I find it highly interesting that evolutionary theory is the only scientific theory that is so special, it must be protected by law.................WHY???

[Scourge of God]

Wow, amazing story. Thanks for the link.

[microgood]

This is a frequently repeated error. The single common tree of life of ribosomal RNA is strong scientific evidence for universal common descent.

Wow. I did not know we have RNA for extinct creatures millions of years old that we supposedly evolved from. Besides, that is all statistical analysis and we all know what statistics is about.

You are quite well aware there is massive genomic and fossil evidence that we descended from single-celled creatures, and massive genomic evidence that the process was mutation coupled with natural selction.

There is data and fossils out there, it is just the erroneous and ridiculous conclusions the scientists come to that are in error.

You can criticize what you want. However, you would, if you were smart, leave the teaching of biology to people who know some biology. If the above is any indication, your criticism would come from the standpoint of unusual ignorance and/or prejudice.

I am looking from the philosophical perspective. Since evolutionists violate all the rules of logic when coming to their conclusions, make logical fallacies right and left, assume what they are trying to prove (universal common descent), etc. those arguments can be criticized by any or all critical thinkers.

Look, if you want to believe the african ant siafu evolved in some unguided process from a single celled creature over millions of years, you are welcome to. 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.

And to get to a singularity in the beginning of life is purely a faith based belief, since noone has or ever will have any idea this first life form even consisted of, if indeed life evolved from some single point at all.

One thing I have learned about evolutionists is that they will never acknowledge they do not know it all. That is quite a different attitude from the other sciences. Go find a website on the big bang and you will see the problems with the theory there as well. I have never seen, on the other hand, an evo site that acknowledged even the slightest problem with evolutionary theory. That is telling.

[Amelia]

But they should not be taught that a mere theory (and a poor one at that) is the truth. They could be taught that it is one POSSIBILITY, since it has not been proven.

You seem to be confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

They aren't the same.

If there were scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, it wouldn't be taught in school. It would have to be changed or discarded.

[Semi Civil Servant]

I say we legislate the value of Pi to be 3.0000. Those other digits are too confusing.

So, why don't you tell us the true value of pi?

[Dominic Harr]

No doubt they're hoping Republicans will fall for this gambit and push creationism, a guaranteed road to political defeat.

Or, this poll only says people believe all evidence should be taught.

Which I think most evos would say, "yes" to.

Since ID has no evidence, this poll does *not* say these folks support ID.

[jec41]

First day science class

Teacher; Science is defined as observation of a fact. Today we are going to study intelligent design. has anyone here ever observed intelligent design as a fact?

Class; No sir!!!

Teacher; If it can't be observed as a fact is it science?

Class; No sir!!!!

Teacher; Very good class, intelligent design has been disproved as a science and will no longer be considered in this class. Tomorrow we will observe some facts.

[mlc9852]

We were all taught evolution in school, weren't we?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You can be confident that that 69% are not just people seeking acadmeic freedom of discussion. This poll tells a lot about what the values of the American people are, and that ain't where the MSM polls tell us it is.

[Scourge of God]

That's one very short class. No doubt that explains evolutions appeal: no need to think or worry about it, just accept it and move on.

Kinda like a fanatical Baptist.

[mlc9852]

You can relax. I doubt it will become a big political issue. Maybe on the local level, though.

[narby]

As WorldNetDaily reported, more than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution. ... The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

I'm a conservative, but this is pure right wing propaganda that's almost as good as the left wing crap of the NYTimes.

Note how they tell about the 500 "scientists" who signed DI's poll against evolution, then quote PBS saying "virtually every scientists in the world believes [evolution] to be true". This makes PBS look like idiots, but the fact is they're right. Project Steve (google it) alone demonstrates that several tens of thousands of scientists do support evolution, contrary to WND's propagandistic insinuation otherwise.

I new I detested Joe Farah at WND when he started this pro-creationism bent. Now that I see his dishonest tactics, I know my instincts about him were correct.