Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools

CNS News ^ | July 13, 2009 | Christopher Neefus

[GodGunsGuts]

(CNSNews.com) - A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats...

[Matchett-PI]

Interesting discussion going on here, if you’re interested:

chromasome fusion #2
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200907/0210.html

[wintertime]

ping for later

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Hmmm,... let’s see how many posts before someone comes in claiming it’s not a legitimate poll.....

The poll may be legitimate, but the spin is not. The poll asks about "the scientific evidence against [the theory of evolution]," but the writer turns this into support for teaching the "weaknesses" of the theory. They're not the same thing.

[alstewartfan]

Yes, GGG, I believe that the strategy of ID’ers should be to ask endless questions about the weaknesses of Naturalism. Eventually, most kids will realize that the entire theory is a house of cards. Your Fellow Mutated Paramecium, Bob

[alstewartfan]

Ken Miller? The chortling, arrogant Darwinist, finds himself boxed in by simple logic? They’ll soon make up, err... think of, SOMETHING highminded and nebulous-sounding to satisfy the “educated” masses! Bob

[pikkel]

Yeah, which version of creationism?

Same problem exists with prayer in schools.

Which prayer?

[count-your-change]

Time for Eugenie Scott’s organization to run a poll and find whatever they want to find.

Can’t have the wrong people questioning Darwinism, can we?

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

And do we know that the Scientifically Accepted weaknesses in Evolution are not being taught now?

[DevNet]

*Not only are the evos afraid of the positive arguments for Intelligent Design/Creation*

You have been asked many times to provide proof to support your arguments yet you refuse to do so. Childish insults and name calling isn’t the same as proof.

[DevNet]

How do you define Naturalism?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Time for Eugenie Scott’s organization to run a poll and find whatever they want to find.

I like that idea! Let's see, using DI's polls as a model:

Which of these two statements comes closest to your own beliefs:

A. Science teachers should teach the best and most widely accepted scientific theories.
B. Science teachers should teach religious beliefs on an equal footing with scientific theories.

or

A. Humans are closer to chimpanzeess than to fish.
B. Humans, chimpanzees, and fish are equally related.

Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?

[RFEngineer]

“Childish insults and name calling isn’t the same as proof.”

They use those in lieu of “you are going to burn in hell”.

That’s pretty much the “one-two punch” of creation science.

Go easy on them though. They can’t help it, they’re just not very bright.

I can advocate for their position better than they can, and I’m not even on their side.

[count-your-change]

It was Zogby that did the poll not The Discovery Institute, and your attempt at impugning the poll because it does not reflect what you want it to fails just as much as trying to spin weakness in Darwinism as something other than evidence against it.

Actually I would expect the Darwinist poll to ask for a choosing of teaching Darwinism on the one hand or child abuse on the other, an idea I think will become the theme in The Temple of Darwinism.

[DevNet]

Do you find that childish name calling helps you convert people to your cause?

[count-your-change]

Never had a cause to seek converts for here on FR, but if calling people childish works for you, let me know.

A little touchy about “Darwinist” are you now?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

It was Zogby that did the poll not The Discovery Institute,

Zogby carried out the poll, but DI "commissioned" it. That mean DI wrote the questions and paid Zogby to call people up and ask them. They like to call it a "Zogby poll" because that makes it sound more objective than it really is. I could pay Zogby to ask people my questions, too.

I'm not impugning the poll because it doesn't reflect what I want it to, I'm impugning the writer because it doesn't say what he claims it does. And "weakness" is not the same thing as "evidence against," though I know that distinction is lost on most creationists.

[DevNet]

I enjoy rational debate and I have some trouble understanding why so few young Earthers debate in a rational way.

[count-your-change]

Why not ask them, I've never supported YEC. Or ask the braying, foul mouthed chorus that regularly shows up to post when GGG posts an article.

[count-your-change]

In Darwin’s Origin Darwin discusses what he calls Difficulties on Theory and says some of the “difficulties” or just as properly, “weaknesses”, if unresolved, would be fatal to the theory. He felt they could be resolved but the point is “difficulties” was simply a mild way of saying “evidence against”.

But if you know who chose the exact wording of the questions please tell us how you know. If the questions were not objective please say how so.

No poll can be really “objective” as the pollster is a questioner not a mind reader so a poll where you would write the questions would be no better.
If you think your poll would be, go hire a polling agent.