Posted on 07/14/2009 10:19:19 AM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I disagree with you. The weaknesses or difficulties with the theory would be questions it was (as yet) unable to answer, or implications for which there was no evidence. "Evidence against" would be observations that contradicted the theory altogether.
For example, if I were a D.A. I might have a theory that so-and-so murdered his wife. A weakness of my theory might be that I don't have the murder weapon or, if I do, I can't tie the suspect to it. Evidence against my theory might be the fact that he was out of the country when the murder was committed.
But if you know who chose the exact wording of the questions please tell us how you know.
That's what "commissioned a poll" means. Read about the poll John Ziegler commissioned of Obama voters. Ziegler:
These questions were carefully chosen to try and identify which news stories broke through the clutter and reached the average Obama voter....Though I point out that, while the inherent nature of the summarizing of complex events in a single simple question is always open for debate, I stand by the accuracy of all of them.Pretty clear he wrote the questions. Zogby:
Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them...Pretty clear they didn't write the questions. That's how these things work.
If the questions were not objective please say how so.
I've said a couple of times that my beef isn't with the questions, it's with what Neefus claims the results demonstrate.
If you don’t have a problem with the poll or the questions no matter who wrote them then what “spin” did the posted article give the results of the poll that was not reflected in the responses to the poll?
So where’s the beef?
Question from the poll:
“QUESTION: 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?” (caps mine)
Strongly Agree 54%
Somewhat Agree 26%
Total Agree 80%
Strongly Disagree 11%
Somewhat Disagree 6%
Total Disagree 26%
Unsure 4%
What spin?
What a cop-out - wasn’t everyone ‘out of the country’ when macro-evolution apparently happened?!?!
Question from the poll:
“QUESTION: 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?” (caps mine)
The article this thread is about says
According to the report, which was commissioned by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, respondents were given the two following statements: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.”
Nothing in there about "strengths and weaknesses." As I said back in #23, the spin is that the poll (as reported) asks about "scientific evidence against," but then the writer claims that if offers support for teaching the "weaknesses of."
Now I see that the question you posted is in the full poll. (I searched on the text of the question.) This question, in fact, is not objective. The question is worded so as to actually be a question about "academic freedom" and "discussion." The DI writers immediately claim that it supports "teaching the controversy." There's a difference between discussing and teaching. I bet you'd get similar results is you asked people whether "teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss whether the Holocaust actually took place." Most people would probably say they should have the "freedom" to "discuss" it. That doesn't mean they think teachers should teach Holocaust denial as an equally valid alternative theory.
Ask yourself this: if DI wanted to find out whether people thought biology teachers should “teach the controversy” and “teach both the strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, why didn’t they just ask that straight out? Why ask one question about “scientific evidence against” and another one about “academic freedom to discuss” and then claim the results supported something they didn’t actually ask?
But they did ask exactly that question about strengths and weaknesses that you claim is spin.
The article stated what the poll said and you claimed it was just spin, I pointed to the question in the poll that said what you claimed it did not and now you're unhappy with the taste of your foot.
You could’ve read the poll, it's readily available, but you didn't. This is the poll the posted article is about and what the article says about the poll IS IN the poll.
You don't like the results of the poll that the article reported, so be it, but what the article stated was accurate.
“Clearly, support for the freedom to teach the controversy about Darwinian evolution cuts across religion, party affiliation, political ideology, and educational levels.”
A quite reasonable conclusion based upon the poll results.
Yes, they asked a question phrased with a couple of buzzwords likely to skew the response. That's the spin.
I'll go through this one more time, but then I'll stop banging my head against this particular wall.
Their headline claims that "Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schools." But they never asked that.
Their writeup claims that "more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution." But that's not really the case either--they asked about "students and teachers" discussing the issue. "Students and teachers discussing" sounds like it could be a classroom roundtable or the answer to a student's question; "teachers discussing" sounds like teaching. Since their report immediately claims support for "teaching" the controversy, you know what conclusion they want you to draw.
Furthermore, the words "have the academic freedom to" in the question skews its meaning. If they wanted to know whether teachers should discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, why didn't they just ask that? (Hint: because if you ask Americans if they support "academic freedom," they'll probably say yes.)
You could’ve read the poll, it's readily available, but you didn't.
Acknowledged. The poll is not linked from the article at the top of this thread, and originally I was just commenting on what was in the article.
You don't like the results of the poll that the article reported, so be it, but what the article stated was accurate.
No, it's not, and my criticisms have nothing to do with whether I like the results or not. I'd say that your inability to see the flaws in the poll and its interpretation is due to the fact that you do like the results.
People want to study a 150-year-old book?
How about we just have Bible classes and quit fooling around?
Now you can read minds.
“Since their report immediately claims support for “teaching” the controversy, you know what conclusion they want you to draw”.
The poll, the questions, the article, the author, now impugned simply doesn’t have the spin YOU want it to have.
“the questions are not objective, are skewed, why weren’t these questions asked, buzz words,”
Whatever. If you have an actual response to any of the points I raised—like why they pretend “students and teachers discuss,” “teachers discuss,” and “teach” are all the same thing—get back to me.
The results of the poll are of no real concern to me. I said the conclusions drawn are reasonable based upon the poll, but as I pointed out, “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.”
What I do find most objectionable is your comments about an article spinning a poll you hadn’t even read, and then when you claim something demonstronably wrong suddenly the poll and questions you had no “beef” with minutes before are now somehow skewed with buzz words.
And now you say I’m doing what you claim you’re not!
If you’re looking for flaws look to your own comments.
I disagree that the conclusions drawn are reasonable, based on the numerous objections I’ve outlined. I think it’s fair to criticize an article about a poll based on what’s in the article, especially when it doesn’t link to the poll; it shouldn’t be my job as the reader to do extra research to see if the article could be accurate if I take other things into account. I’ve been clear from the beginning that I didn’t have a problem with the questions reported in the article, but only with the spin the article gave them; but that I did have a problem with the other question in the full poll. I’m sorry if these kinds of distinctions are lost on you, but I can’t really do anything about that.
And I'll be glad to get back to you if you promise to make sense next time and read what you comment on.
I’m sorry if these kinds of distinctions are lost on you, but I can’t really do anything about that.
DevNet, I’d define it as the belief that organisms were created by random natural processes, whether or not aome bystander “god” actually exists in their minds. Blessings, Bob
When I quoted the poll question that showed you hadn't read the poll and hence the questions, then, then the poll, the questions, the terms used, you got a “beef” with.
Those “other things” you “take into account” was what? That the Discovery Institute commissioned the poll? The results just don't fit your expectations? Your hopes?
Pleeeeeze! You shot from the lip early on, got called on it, and you've been trying all afternoon to do your own spin cycle citing distinctions without a difference.
That's something you could do something about and passed up the chance.
I did read the original article. I made the mistake of assuming the author was basing the conclusions drawn in the article on the evidence he offers in the article. That's the way it's usually done. Instead, I learned (with your help; thank you) that the conclusions were based on other evidence in some other document that wasn't even linked to. So when the beginning of the article says:
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.the two statements referred to don't actually have anything to do with the sentence preceding them. How silly of me to assume they did.According to the report, which was commissioned by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, respondents were given the two following statements:
Those “other things” you “take into account” was what?
The fact that the support for the author's assertion was in some other document he didn't even link to, rather than the document where the assertion was made.
citing distinctions without a difference.
I’m sorry if these kinds of distinctions are lost on you, but I can’t really do anything about that.
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.