Change Some May Not Want You To Believe In

American Thinker ^ | February 11, 2009 | James Baker

[neverdem]

Here is some interesting, and unexpected, polling data. According to the Discovery Institute’s website :

A new Zogby poll on the eve of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday shows a dramatic rise in the number of Americans who agree that when biology teachers teach the scientific evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution, they also should teach the scientific evidence against it. Surprisingly, the poll also shows overwhelming support among self-identified Democrats and liberals for academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

 

Over 78% of likely voters agree with teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, according to the new national poll.

 

“This represents a dramatic 9-point jump from 2006, when only 69% of respondents in a similar poll favored teaching both sides,” said Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West. “At the same time, the number of likely voters who support teaching only the evidence that favors evolution dropped 7 points from 21% in 2006 to 14.4% in 2009.

The poll results also shatter some preconceptions about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian evolution, with Democrats supporting teaching Darwinism’s “strengths and weaknesses” even more overwhelmingly than Republicans, at 82% and 73%, respectively.

The link takes the reader to an executive summary of the poll that reveals:

Notably, according to the new poll, young adults are far less likely than any other age group to favor a one-sided approach to teaching evolution. When asked if they agreed with the statement that biology teachers should teach "only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it" -- the position typically advocated by pro-Darwin activists and academic partisans -- 0% agreed among those in the 18-24 year-old age bracket!

This poll suggests that a broad-based change might be afoot in American culture -- a change countering decades-long censorship in the classroom. On the question of teaching only the Darwinian theory of evolution (and excluding any theories that challenge it), this Zogby poll indicates that many Americans are having doubts … and choosing to support open debate of this issue.

Posted at 01:01 AM | Email

[neverdem]

There's reason for hope and change. They are not all young skulls full of mush. BTW, the under 30 demographic cohort voted for Obama over McCain by a 2:1 ratio.

To be sceptical of Darwinian evolution is to contravene the First Amendment according to the left. What church, i.e. establishment of religion, does that promote?

P.S. The pdf link is only 5 pages. P.P.S. I don't have problems with teaching evolution or highlighting what it doesn't explain.

[sickoflibs]

Don’t they do that now?

[green iguana]

Good teaching of science would mandate teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of any theory, not just natural selection, so I kind of dislike the focus these debates have on evolution.

Now if they focused on Global Warming...

[Eagle Eye]

the under 30 demographic cohort voted for Obama over McCain by a 2:1 ratio.

IMO it was A) voting against status quo; B) voting for someone who isn't an old white guy.

That under 30 group is about as dumb as a bag of hammers regarding the issues. Yes there are exceptions.

[neverdem]

Don’t they do that now?

Scientific McCarthyism

[sickoflibs]

That link talks about ID and then later talks about a Creator. But that doesnt mean that alternatives to natural selection are not allowed. I have read evolutionists propose them talking about problems with Darwins Natural selection. Not teaching ID (or is it Creation or both)is not the same as pointing out problems with natural selection, Darwins theory. Very misleading post.

[Between the Lines]

1 in 3 Americans Unfamiliar with Darwin's Tie to Evolution

[Julia H.]

Any SCIENTIFIC problems with ANY scientific concept should be fair game. Creation vs. evolution is a non-issue here.

[neverdem]

That link talks about ID and then later talks about a Creator.

Intelligent design directly implies an intelligent Designer. The Designer or Creator, does it make a difference? It only means the universe and life didn't happen by accident. It doesn't establish any religion.

[Humvee]

The change to believe in is the loose change left in your pockets when this mess is over.

[Humvee]

Whoops, Sorry. I thought this was about the “Stimulus” package.

[sickoflibs]

RE “ The Designer or Creator, does it make a difference?”

Yes and no. Yes creationists considered it necessary to change the name for a reason. No because they both have the same problem, they offer no alternative to evolution but talk as though they do. For example, if Creationists/Iders were will to defend Noah’s Ark theory, that would an alternative. It might be difficult but it would be comparing something to something else, not something to nothing.

In fact in the 1800s scientists used to do exactly that, defend Noah’s Ark. They were serious scientists.

[spunkets]

"They are not all young skulls full of mush."

I disagree. I think the poll results are the consequence of their acceptance of what they're being taught. In particular, it's the maxim Anything is Possible. Once that mush is driven in their heads as a fundamental reference point, the chaos, confusion, cognitive dissonance, ect... that's otherwise known as mush, is all that's likely.