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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last
To: Marie2
Then you are knowlegeable that the plate moves about 2" per year consistent with the 300,000 year cycle of magnetic reversals. Looking at the 'stripes' we see millions of years of movement.

If the earth was only 6000 years old, that would mean that the poles were reversing every few decades! How many reversals have we seen in the last few hundred years?

101 posted on 02/19/2009 5:38:35 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Further, references to six day creation are referred to as literal by Moses, Jesus, Paul, and others. They are never referred to as being metaphorical.

Which Genesis is literal? Genesis 1 which states that man was created after animals or Genesis 2 which states that animals were created after man?

102 posted on 02/19/2009 5:41:24 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"I can destroy evolution easily!"

"I can destroy evolution easily!"

"I can destroy evolution easily!"

"I can destroy evolution easily!"

"I can destroy evolution easily!"

I never wrote that!

I never wrote that!

I never wrote that!

I never wrote that!

I never wrote that!

Apologize.

Apologize.

Apologize.

Apologize.

Apologize.


103 posted on 02/19/2009 5:42:28 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Uh huh.


104 posted on 02/19/2009 5:43:17 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
creationWiki ...

says dinosaurs went extinct because evil man hunted them down and destroyed them. Why are these menacing beasts and the great battle between man and these beasts mentioned in the Bible?

105 posted on 02/19/2009 5:46:13 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
"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."

Interesting. Which "evolution scientist[s]" do you use, and what writings of theirs do you incorporate into your lessons?

106 posted on 02/19/2009 5:50:54 PM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
References to the four corners of the earth and sunrise and so forth are in poetic and prophetic books. References to six-day creation are in historical narratives right in there with the genealogies, the troop movements, and all the literal stuff. Further, references to six day creation are referred to as literal by Moses, Jesus, Paul, and others. They are never referred to as being metaphorical.

This would be more easily accepted if all of Christianity agreed with it. But they don't. In fact, there are plenty of Christians on this very thread that would take issue with this. The problem is that no one knows when the bible switches from literal to "poetic", from historic to prophetic. Hence, the endless array of denominations, internal bickerings, OEC's vs. YEC's vs. Theological Evolutionists, etc, etc, etc.

Firstly, I am not a degreed scientist and doubt I ever will be.

I'm NOT trying to be a jerk here, but... those who DO have degrees in the specialties dealing with those skulls... they DO know what they are talking about. Just as theologians who have studied the original Hebrew know a heckuva lot more about the Bible than I do - and I wouldn't argue with them or disagree with them.

Secondly, those who believe God created the world don’t get grants from secular or governmental institutions.

The majority of scientists who seek grant money in America are Christians who believe in God.
107 posted on 02/19/2009 5:52:58 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; allmendream

==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.”

What do you suppose the other side of each question was when Darwin wrote that statement?

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

Which groups are amassing the scientific evidence against the “theory” of evolution.


108 posted on 02/19/2009 5:53:59 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Uh huh.

Wow. Your posts get better all the time!

109 posted on 02/19/2009 5:54:13 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Which groups are amassing the scientific evidence against the “theory” of evolution.

I don't know. Haven't seen any yet.

110 posted on 02/19/2009 5:54:51 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Um, okay dude. Here goes:

Cedric the genius did NOT say “I can destroy evolution easily.” I paraphrased him and am terribly sorry.

Cedric the genius DID say, “I’m not opposed to destroying the flimsy myth of evolution, first, if that’s where you want to start.”

Again, I am deeply, deeply sorry for this misquote. As we have all learned, Creationists are very strict about misquotes and have never, ever done so on any of their websites.

Now, back to Cedric destroying the flimsy myth of evolution...


111 posted on 02/19/2009 5:56:43 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
the facts

Or does that escape you?

112 posted on 02/19/2009 5:57:44 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Sorry I stepped out.

I had to go get my really, really tall boots.


113 posted on 02/19/2009 5:58:15 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
I paraphrased him and am terribly sorry.

Don't apologize. Your post was labeling his game, not directly quoting him.

114 posted on 02/19/2009 5:58:51 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Sorry I stepped out. I had to go get my really, really tall boots.

You left? We didn't miss you.

115 posted on 02/19/2009 5:59:23 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Your gracious apology is magnanimously accepted.


116 posted on 02/19/2009 6:01:00 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Why the quotation marks then, Shakespeare?


117 posted on 02/19/2009 6:03:07 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What do you suppose the other side of each question was when Darwin wrote that statement?

GGG, you really must check your sources! To answer your question, certainly not what you think he meant! Go to your bookshelf and grab one of your well-worn copies of "On the Origin of Species" and check it out for yourself. It's on page 2. This shouldn't take you long.
118 posted on 02/19/2009 6:03:15 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Why the quotation marks then, Shakespeare?

Ask him. Maybe for this?

----------------------------------------

Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

Example:

The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

119 posted on 02/19/2009 6:07:33 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Words, not an entire sentence, professor Johnson.

And you got Genesis 1 & 2 screwed up, too.

Perhaps, you've got a little “fusion” goin’ on in your brain, Mr. Oppenheimer.

120 posted on 02/19/2009 6:13:28 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
And you got Genesis 1 & 2 screwed up, too.

I don't think so. Please explain why you think I did?

121 posted on 02/19/2009 6:18:51 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Words, not an entire sentence, professor Johnson.

A sentence is composed of words.

122 posted on 02/19/2009 6:20:18 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

It is you that distorted his post. His post:


Your game here is quite pathetic. “I can destroy evolution easily!”

is clear that he is referring to your “game” and not making a direct quote from you posts.


123 posted on 02/19/2009 6:25:21 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Please explain why you think I did?

Because you're intellectually arrogant and spiritually dead.

You asked.

124 posted on 02/19/2009 6:38:35 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Me: Please explain why you think I did?

Because you're intellectually arrogant and spiritually dead. You asked.

Translated: You can't explain so you make a personal attack.

125 posted on 02/19/2009 6:43:29 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The title of this thread is somewhat misleading. By inserting “Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate”, one may assume that the “sides” in question are those that are generally debated here: evolution vs. creation. However, the survey instead questions whether scientific evidence should be presented in support of and in oppostiion to evolution. Of course it should—that’s good science. As creation has no scientific foundation, it is really not the counterbalance to evolution that the title implies.


126 posted on 02/19/2009 6:55:07 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; GodGunsGuts
The title of this thread is somewhat misleading.

Posted by GGGs. What else.

127 posted on 02/19/2009 6:57:06 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
No attack, just an honest appraisal of why you claim there's a contradiction in Genesis 1 & 2 when none exists.

If it weren't for the stifling combination of the two cited deterrents, you could and would get it.

128 posted on 02/19/2009 7:01:08 PM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
No attack, just an honest appraisal of why you claim there's a contradiction in Genesis 1 & 2 when none exists. Please. Genesis 1 states that animals were created before man but Genesis 2 states that animals were created for companions for Adam AFTER he found Adam lonely. BTW, didn't God know that Adam would be lonely without Eve when he created Adam?
129 posted on 02/19/2009 7:04:21 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
No attack, just an honest appraisal of why you claim there's a contradiction in Genesis 1 & 2 when none exists.

Please. Genesis 1 states that animals were created before man but Genesis 2 states that animals were created for companions for Adam AFTER he found Adam lonely.

BTW, didn't God know that Adam would be lonely without Eve when he created Adam?

Didn't God know that animals would not be a satisfactor companion for Adam?

130 posted on 02/19/2009 7:05:34 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

The darwinists predicted a tree of life. Creationists predicted an orchard of trees. Darwin’s tree of life is being hacked down. Creationist prediction strengthened.

Creationists predicted catostrophism. Darwinists predicted uniformitarianism. Catastrophism is on the rise. Darwinism diminished, creation strengthened.

Creationist predicted that the genome is mostly functional, Darwinists predicted that the vast majority of the genome is leftover “junk” from our evolutionary past. We now know that the genome is at least 93% functional. Darwinism deminished, creation stengthened.

Etc, etc, etc.


131 posted on 02/19/2009 7:22:02 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Cedric

==Do you think you can prove ID?

Do you think you can “prove” Darwin’s fanciful creation myth?


132 posted on 02/19/2009 7:25:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: pallis

I’m down with that. Excellent point!


133 posted on 02/19/2009 7:27:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Creationists predicted an orchard of trees.

Creationists believe in evolutionary trees. I agree execept for the YEC'rs.

134 posted on 02/19/2009 7:32:20 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Bring it.

LOL Genesis 1: 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

----

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

You creationists got the the order wrong. First you make the Sun then you get the light. Also putting plants on the Earth before there is a sun doesn't make any sense either.

Now back to you. Do you have any evidence at all that plants were growing on the Earth before the Sun existed?

135 posted on 02/19/2009 7:37:14 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 29 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Cedric; tacticalogic

==Psalm 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever

If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?


136 posted on 02/19/2009 7:41:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Do you think you can “prove” Darwin’s fanciful creation myth?

Do you think it can be disproven by simply declaring it so often enough?

137 posted on 02/19/2009 7:46:53 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I would think they had it backwards because a steam engine is built so that is should be moved.

My question is how, once one accepted that the ‘proper’ scriptural interpretation was that the Earth did not move, would one disabuse himself of that notion?

Obviously the majority of the Christian world changed their mind on the issue over the centuries. What was the mechanism of change?


138 posted on 02/19/2009 7:49:42 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?

I don't consider a historian to speak for God. We are talking about God's word or do you just consider the Bible to be a history text?

139 posted on 02/19/2009 7:50:00 PM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If an historian recorded that America laid the foundations of the steam engine, so that it should not be moved, would you assume that the author meant that steam engines remain stationary?

That depends on the context. He might have recorded that it should not be moved, but plate techtonics says it did anyway.

140 posted on 02/19/2009 7:51:55 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m no surprised. there is also a lot of support for the fairness doctrine -that’s basically what the drive to force force science to teach things not supported by science equate to - the Fairness doctrine but for schools rather than media.


141 posted on 02/19/2009 7:53:27 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Cedric

Precisely, the earth’s foundation was built so that it SHOULD BE MOVED. And yet it’s movement is fixed, according to the laws God created to govern its motion.


142 posted on 02/19/2009 8:00:36 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Cedric; Marie2

Evos don’t have a “stranglehold on academia.” Creationist notions are propounded at fundamentalist Bible colleges and at countless other institutions, websites, etc. You are free to donate to a fundamentalist college or other creationist outfit, or to pursue a doctorate in science so as to be able to carry the ball for creationism yourself.

I also find it interesting that even though creationist outfits have the money, they choose not to publish peer-reviewed scholarly journals of their own, even while loudly complaining that the established journals will not accept their works. Are they as much as admitting that they’d lack a rational basis on which to accept or reject an article?

Marie2: I pinged you hither as I think this response also addresses your post #100.

Cedric: Careful about attributing to Richard Dawkins the idea that life on Earth was seeded from space. I saw where he mentioned that in reviewing Francis Crick’s hypothesis, but Dawkins seemed to find it quite unfounded.


143 posted on 02/19/2009 8:02:15 PM PST by Mogwai (You say "far right" like that's a bad thing, Arlen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Big difference. The Evos use the government and the courts to enforce the religious dogma emanating from the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism on our public schools and government funded science institutions. Talk radio is governed by the free market. The libs seek to thwart the will of the market with respect to talk radio in the same way that the Evos thwart the free market of scientific ideas with respect to creation/intelligent design.


144 posted on 02/19/2009 8:07:08 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So what was the mechanism of change that swept over the Christian world concerning the proper interpretation of this scripture?

A literalist interpretation used to be that the Earth did not move based in part on that scripture. How did it change?

145 posted on 02/19/2009 8:08:08 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Mogwai

>>Evos don’t have a “stranglehold on academia.” <<

In science classes at most respectable schools, high school and college, it would be fair to say that generally accepted science is usually required as the basis of the curricula


146 posted on 02/19/2009 8:13:16 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

==So what was the mechanism of change that swept over the Christian world concerning the proper interpretation of this scripture?

It began as a tale of compromise with the science of men. Surely you know that the Catholic church inherited the fixity of the earth from the pagan greeks? Ever heard of Aristotle? Ptolemy?

It was the Young Earth Creationists—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton—-who convinced the Christian world that the pagan greeks were wrong about the fixity of the Earth.


147 posted on 02/19/2009 8:24:29 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>>Big difference. The Evos use the government and the courts to enforce the religious dogma emanating from the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism on our public schools and government funded science institutions. Talk radio is governed by the free market. The libs seek to thwart the will of the market with respect to talk radio in the same way that the Evos thwart the free market of scientific ideas with respect to creation/intelligent design.<<

I think the fairness doctrine is a apt analogy - if we were talking about forcing philosophy classes to teach contrary to their normal curriculum or to force religion classes to give equal time to non-religion or forcing basketball teams to spend half their times saying “maybe basketball is wrong” then I would also feel it was similar to the fairness doctrine.

I don’t want to misquote you but I think you and I are in agreement that the constitution was never meant to limit voluntary public expression of religion. I think we would both support voluntary bible study anywhere, including public schools. What I don’t understand is the attempt to inject religion or ID or anything else not accepted by science into science curriculum.

I’d certainly support letting kids ask an question - I happily fielded questions about the flood, for example, but that’s different from adding it to the curriculum.


148 posted on 02/19/2009 8:25:24 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

If that is your argument, then evolution needs to be exluded as well. Like creation and intelligent design, evolution is an historical inference about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. As such, evolution does not fall under the perview of operational science, and thus should be excluded. If you argue that it should be kept (and enforced), then competing historical inferences should also be given a fair hearing. That includes creation and intelligent design, not to mention panspermia and other competing evolutionary theories.


149 posted on 02/19/2009 8:38:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: gondramB; Cedric; Marie2

Cedric spoke of “academia” and “grants,” so I surmised that he had in mind colleges and universities. I suppose that “academia” could include high schools as well, but that would be a rather eccentric usage. Creationism has indeed lost badly in the marketplace of ideas at most reputable colleges and universities, and I think it ill becomes a conservative to complain about losing in the free market. It seems to suggest the desire for a sort of intellectual affirmative action, or set-aside, which is anything but conservative. And, it’s not as though creationists don’t have supportive places to go to college, though to be sure they don’t have as many choices. But then again, we conservatives are supposed to reject the entitlement mentality.


150 posted on 02/19/2009 8:45:21 PM PST by Mogwai (You say "far right" like that's a bad thing, Arlen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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