Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Results from nationwide poll (Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate)
Zogby International ^ | February 3, 2009

Posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Narrative Summary

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 Darwin’s statement?

(Click excerpt link for responses)

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

(Click excerpt link for responses)

(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2009polls; antiscienceagenda; catholic; christian; creation; creationism; evolution; fundamentalism; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; zogby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2009 4:06:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

ping!


2 posted on 02/19/2009 4:08:57 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


3 posted on 02/19/2009 4:09:54 PM PST by techno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“but also the scientific evidence against it.”

As worded that means NOT teaching ID.


4 posted on 02/19/2009 4:13:04 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: techno

Just goes to show the jackbooted tactics that are being employed to shield neo-Darwinian evolution from scientific scrutiny.


5 posted on 02/19/2009 4:13:20 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


6 posted on 02/19/2009 4:13:36 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
“The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields.” “Education is useless without the Bible” ...[Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]
7 posted on 02/19/2009 4:15:09 PM PST by tflabo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

==Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it

As worded that means NOT teaching Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.


8 posted on 02/19/2009 4:16:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
All well and good until it comes down to what constitutes "scientific evidence for and against".

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.

9 posted on 02/19/2009 4:16:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

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?


10 posted on 02/19/2009 4:19:55 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

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.).


11 posted on 02/19/2009 4:21:06 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
it comes down to what constitutes "scientific evidence"

Yes, this is something evolutionists have never been adept at honestly evaluating.

12 posted on 02/19/2009 4:21:42 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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?


13 posted on 02/19/2009 4:21:54 PM PST by tflabo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

Teach all the creationism you want, in religion class. Not in science class.


14 posted on 02/19/2009 4:27:43 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

==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:

See this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2189225/posts

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


15 posted on 02/19/2009 4:31:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Yes, this is something evolutionists have never been adept at honestly evaluating.

As opposed to the argument that it's satatism?

16 posted on 02/19/2009 4:31:05 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Real cute: In public indoctrination centers, there are no religion classes.

Wow, you guys are gutless.


17 posted on 02/19/2009 4:31:16 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


18 posted on 02/19/2009 4:31:52 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No, as opposed to having a mocicum of intellectual integrity.


19 posted on 02/19/2009 4:32:55 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
"Real cute: In public indoctrination centers, there are no religion classes."

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.

20 posted on 02/19/2009 4:33:50 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
No, as opposed to having a mocicum of intellectual integrity.

And that's your idea of presenting a civil argument on the weaknesses of the ToE?

21 posted on 02/19/2009 4:35:04 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t make creationism a science.

Correct. Facts and evidence do. And there are plenty of both. Let them be heard!

22 posted on 02/19/2009 4:35:12 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This poll measures something that is not controversial. It's not surprising that most people want different scientific evidence discussed in the science classroom.
23 posted on 02/19/2009 4:36:16 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
It should include teaching enough about ID, so that students can say why it isn’t a scientific theory.

I think the poll referred only to teaching scientific evidence. That leaves out ID.

24 posted on 02/19/2009 4:38:12 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
It should include teaching enough about ID, so that students can say why it isn’t a scientific theory.

You really want them to teach that God may be dead?

25 posted on 02/19/2009 4:38:43 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cedric; mlo
Wow, you guys are gutless.

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.

26 posted on 02/19/2009 4:39:59 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You've got no evidence, none of the promised (for 150 years) confirmatory fossils, you employ astonishingly sophomoric circular reasoning and your fascists, yet you want opponents to be civil?

You're a hoot.

27 posted on 02/19/2009 4:41:06 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mlo

==Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t 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.


28 posted on 02/19/2009 4:41:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Bring it.


29 posted on 02/19/2009 4:41:56 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
"Correct. Facts and evidence do. And there are plenty of both. Let them be heard!"

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.

30 posted on 02/19/2009 4:42:34 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
You've got no evidence, none of the promised (for 150 years) confirmatory fossils, you employ astonishingly sophomoric circular reasoning and your fascists, yet you want opponents to be civil?

Is that the argument you intend to bring into the classroom under the premise of presenting scientific evidence?

31 posted on 02/19/2009 4:44:12 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mlo

I’m not opposed to destroying the flimsy myth of evolution, first, if that’s where you want to start.


32 posted on 02/19/2009 4:45:09 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


33 posted on 02/19/2009 4:45:55 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The burden of proof is on the evos. And they've been found wanting.

{and wanton}

34 posted on 02/19/2009 4:47:02 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
The burden of proof is on the evos. And they've been found wanting. {and wanton}

If the burden is on them, they're the only one's with any business in the classroom.

35 posted on 02/19/2009 4:48:10 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I wish they would ask if people favor/oppose school vouchers in this kind of poll. It kind of seems like the question of what we indoctrinate kids with skips over the question of if we should be indoctrinating kids in school to begin with. I think the ultimate answer to the evolution/id debate (as well as a ton of others) should be left up to the market and parents rather then a bunch of pointy headed educrats.
36 posted on 02/19/2009 4:48:17 PM PST by cmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
I don't follow? In what way does what I said imply teaching that God may be dead?

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”.)

37 posted on 02/19/2009 4:48:24 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Just because a majority of the sheeple think that a fairy tale should be taught in science class doesn't make it right.

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.

38 posted on 02/19/2009 4:49:06 PM PST by Clemenza (Red is the Color of Virility, Blue is the Color of Impotence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

They’ve had a century and a half.

Time’s up.

Bring on ID.


39 posted on 02/19/2009 4:49:39 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
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.

Interestingly, chemistry teachers also usually fail to mention alchemy and geologists have also discarded the flat earth notion. Am I to understand you have a problem with this as well?
40 posted on 02/19/2009 4:49:51 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I don't follow? In what way does what I said imply teaching that God may be dead?

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?

41 posted on 02/19/2009 4:50:24 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
I’m not opposed to destroying the flimsy myth of evolution, first, if that’s where you want to start.

You and 17 other FReepers. Have at it. Give us your one single best brightest undisputable evidence to destroy the "flimsy myth of evolution."
42 posted on 02/19/2009 4:51:04 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
the main creation science teachings

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.

43 posted on 02/19/2009 4:52:25 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

No, since the Bible does not declare alchemy nor flat earth notions to be true.

Find the missing link yet?


44 posted on 02/19/2009 4:52:37 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Those chemists are shaking in their boots knowing that their fanciful “periodic table” is crumbling, the evidence for alchemy is overwhelming!

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.

45 posted on 02/19/2009 4:54:53 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

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?


46 posted on 02/19/2009 4:55:43 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

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.


47 posted on 02/19/2009 4:56:07 PM PST by Marie2 (Ora et labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Give us your one single best brightest undisputable evidence

You go first.

Never mind, we don't feel like giving you another 150 years to spew more of your gibberish.

48 posted on 02/19/2009 4:56:30 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
I didn't know that.

I also said (quoting myself):

“Please note, the above concerns pedagogy only — it isn’t 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?

49 posted on 02/19/2009 4:56:43 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Probably not correct to brand all Christians as anti-evolutionary, if that’s what you meant.


50 posted on 02/19/2009 4:56:55 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson