Skip to comments.Results from nationwide poll (Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate)
Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwins statement?
(Click excerpt link for responses)
6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwins theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of viewStatement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwins theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwins theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
(Click excerpt link for responses)
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Isn’t that interesting that it is the position that Sarah Palin advocates and has taken so much heat on from fellow politicians and the MSM.
“but also the scientific evidence against it.”
As worded that means NOT teaching ID.
Just goes to show the jackbooted tactics that are being employed to shield neo-Darwinian evolution from scientific scrutiny.
None of these excerpted questions are controversial. Any scientific issue should cover evidence both for and against.
But evidence against evolution, whatever that may be, does not equate to creationism.
==Darwins theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it
As worded that means NOT teaching Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.
Saying you think both sides of the issue should be discussed and weighed objectively is one thing. Actually doing it proves to be quite another matter.
So you’re saying that evidence of a young earth, an orchard of trees instead of a tree of life, no transitional fossils or missing links, evidence of a global flood, etc, etc, should not be placed in the creation science side of the ledger?
It should include teaching enough about ID, so that students can say why it isn’t a scientific theory.
It helps to provide both examples, and non-examples to teach about any concept. If you wish to teach why evolution is a scientific theory — it would help to be able to distinguish it from theories you don’t consider scientific.
Please note, the above concerns pedagogy only — it isn’t meant to be a comment on the substantive issues (between evolution, and ID, etc.).
Yes, this is something evolutionists have never been adept at honestly evaluating.
The word ‘Universal’ means all-encompassing...hence the schools of learning are called ‘Universities’. Any knowledge that is suppressed is pure censorship. If the theory of Evolution proponents are so secure in their ‘science’ then why should the concepts of ‘creationism’ be such a threat?
Teach all the creationism you want, in religion class. Not in science class.
==If the theory of Evolution proponents are so secure in their science then why should the concepts of creationism be such a threat?
Because the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is really a rival religion dressed in scientific garb:
Then read this:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
—Richard C. Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Biology at Harvard University, 1997
As opposed to the argument that it's satatism?
Real cute: In public indoctrination centers, there are no religion classes.
Wow, you guys are gutless.
Pointing out problems and objections in one theory is not the same thing as building an alternative theory.
Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t make creationism a science.
No, as opposed to having a mocicum of intellectual integrity.
Even if true, that wouldn't entitle creationism to be taught in science class.
But it's not true anyway. There are religion classes in most universities. Comparative religion, mythology, literature, etc.
And that's your idea of presenting a civil argument on the weaknesses of the ToE?
Correct. Facts and evidence do. And there are plenty of both. Let them be heard!
I think the poll referred only to teaching scientific evidence. That leaves out ID.
You really want them to teach that God may be dead?
I actually think that TOE should be compared to Creationism and Lamarkian selection in biology classes. Teaching why those systems (Creationism and Lamarkian Selection) are wrong is very educational and actually might help students understand Evolution better.
You're a hoot.
==Trying to pick holes in evolution doesnt make creationism a science.
True enough. But if those wholes are being picked based on the hypothesis that the biblical account of creation and the noaitic flood are true, then it’s science. For instance: creationists predict that the earth is young, they predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees with no transitionals outside the bounds of the biblical kinds; they predict evidence of a global flood, etc, etc. They are forming hypothesis, and they are testing the same using the scientific method. That’s science.
And if I asked you about some of them what I'd get is a bunch of reasons why evolution must be wrong. Like I said, trying to knock down one theory doesn't build a different one.
Is that the argument you intend to bring into the classroom under the premise of presenting scientific evidence?
I’m not opposed to destroying the flimsy myth of evolution, first, if that’s where you want to start.
In our home school I teach my kids what evolution is, often using the evolution scientist’s own writings, so that they have an antithesis to our thesis that creation science is correct.
Having been raised to believe in evolution I have no qualms discussing its main teachings as well as contrasting it to the creationist view.
Evolutionists, in general, do not seem to share the same confidence and refuse to even mention the main creation science teachings, even if only critically.
If the burden is on them, they're the only one's with any business in the classroom.
BTW, I have deep respect for the scientific method — but, I also know that it can never reveal all truths in the universe. I also know that all science should be treated as “provisional facts”. (One should say: “not yet disproven”, rather than “proven”.)
Keep your bibles in theology class, please.
There, I said it. This is the main issue (actually the only at this point) issue that divides me from Xians.
They’ve had a century and a half.
Bring on ID.
You said you wanted to teach ID. You do realize that one of the basic tenents of ID is that God may be dead since there exists no evidence that he has been alive in the last few hundred million years?
As far as I understand, the 'main creation science' is as written in the Bible in Genesis. That doesn't classify as science class material.
No, since the Bible does not declare alchemy nor flat earth notions to be true.
Find the missing link yet?
If not for a “Temple of Chemistry” zealots keeping out our important work and marginalizing and discrediting out spokesmen, we would have long ago superseded Chemistry as the primary science-like theory of matter.
You just put the burden on them. If you’re not willing to do any of the work, what entitles you to have any say in the matter?
The description of God’s miraculous creation of the earth is indeed found in Genesis. So is the account of the world wide flood.
Creation science presupposes these incidents to be true. So, Biology, Chemistry, Geology etc. are taught from these presuppositions.
For example in Geology we learn the principle of superposition, creation/formation of various strata, petrification and so forth, and in Biology we learn about cells, plant life, reproduction, DNA, micro (as opposed to macro) evolution, all without the imposition of evolutionary thought.
You go first.
Never mind, we don't feel like giving you another 150 years to spew more of your gibberish.
I also said (quoting myself):
“Please note, the above concerns pedagogy only it isnt meant to be a comment on the substantive issues (between evolution, and ID, etc.).”
You just have to look back at all the TOE/ID/Creationism threads on Freerepublic to realize that the “controversy” makes the subject far, far, more interesting than simply presenting the orthodox view. Do you expect students (teenagers at that!!) to just take teacher's word for things — or would you rather equip them to be able to think for themselves?
Probably not correct to brand all Christians as anti-evolutionary, if that’s what you meant.