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."
"But that is not necessarily evolution so much as mutating."
What is your definition of evolution?
like changing from an ape to a human or a reptile to a mammal or a one-celled organism to a human over time.
I dont really think tiny minute changes in DNA structure etc count as "evolution."
Scientists eager to prove evolution probably think differently though.
" Other than the last 4 words, I don't see one....
Is this a trick? If not, can I buy a vowel? ;)"
Correct, there isn't a difference. Why aren't you pushing for Santa Claus theory? Teach the controversy! Just because we don't yet have any scientific evidence of his existence, that is no reason to exclude Santa Theory from the classroom!
In other words, we could never correctly say 'there is no evidence of unicorns on earth', because evidence of unicorns might be lurking behind the bushes on the south-west corner of Central Park, NY. In fact, the phrase "there is no evidence of..." could never be correct, according to darbymcgill.
Interestingly, I googled the literal phrase "There is no evidence of" and found 4,170,000 hits. All wrong, according to our hero. Among the nonentities who rashly used this nonsensical expression were NASA (several times), Columbia University, the UN, George Bush's physician (he said there was no evidence of heart disease; poor W probably thought that was a good thing) and W himself.
Thanks for setting the entire world straight, darby!
If it's been rebutted previously, and you reposted as if it hadn't, it's what we would call a 'frequently repeated error'. We used to call it something a little harsher, but the mods are spoilsports.
I've been to 34th Street, and I know Santa Claus exists. There is no evidence that he does, and that's proof enough for me.
They still use their wings, but not for flying
Yes, but scientific theories related to and extrapolated from the T of E , like the Big Bang theory, so say something came from nothing, or simply ignore the issue of where everything came from.
Big bang theory was not extrapolated from Theory of Evolution. It was extrapolated from astronomical observations, not observations of life.
Also, there are some animals that defy evolution:
None of those animals defy evolution. We don't know a lot in biology such as how the spiders brain causes it to form webs. Yet does that mean such questions defy biology? No, these questions are not of areas that have been fully explored which biologists are now stuck, they are areas that are still to be explored.
Questions such as how precisely the spiders brain evolved to spin a web is unlikely to be answered until we know how the spider's brain actually does this. That doesn't represent a brickwall defial of evolution, it represents work yet to be done.
The giraffe only defies evolution if it is assumed it's long neck suddenly appeared in one fell swoop. But if it in fact gradually lengthened over many generations then support for the lengthening neck could have gradually developed in tandem. At all stages you have adequate support for the current neck length.
The beaver only defies evolution if it is assumed, as the question states, "All of the beaver's equipment must be present and fully functional in the animal from the beginning for it to survive its semi-aquatic lifestyle". But none of the beaver's equipment listed is necessary for survival. It helps, but is not necessary. Many aquatic mammals do not have such features and they survive ok.
The problem with most of these animal examples is they take an animal and then assume it appeared in it's current form. Ie evolution is ruled out from the start creating a curious kind of circlar argument.
For example it is assumed that the Incubator Bird's ancestors had always needed a precise temperature of exactly 91°F to hatch. But under evolution this is not necessarily true.
It's not a theory and they don't prove it, but they use it to catalog their extensive lists of creatures that would otherwise have no taxonomic organization at all except simple things like feathers-fur-scales-bark.
Wait! This just in!
I guess this means that ID is true...
OK I see where you are coming from.
Not Holding My Breath Placemarker
"So... for me to expect consistency of thought and actions by those posting their arguments here, especially those claiming to be scientists, is comparable to a belief in Santa Claus?"
No, I showed that the logic of your example was faulty. You want ID to be considered scientific before it makes any scientific, testable claims. Just because there is no evidence for ID now doesn't mean there ever will be. Until there is, it does not belong in a science classroom. You want science to change its rules and allow ID in before it makes any testable claims. By that standard, ANY idea that has not been falsified should be considered scientific. Santa Claus theory has as much going for it as ID.
I would say that, in this particular case (i.e. speaking of ID), the phrasing is not erroneous. It is necessarily true that there is no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life. I say necessarily because, to be evidence of a scientific theory, it must be a deduction of the theory. ID as it is currently constituted permits no deductions therefore it can have no evidence.
It's posts like yours that create suspicion against so-called scientific theories.
700 and out for the night.
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.