Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
To: Godel, physicistI want to take a few minutes to thank all of you for your input. This poll was more popular than I had thought and I appreciate even your criticism of the questions (can't please everyone).
I'm taking down the poll now because although I didn't get exactly the information I had been expecting, as often happens in the field of discovery, I learned some very interesting things nonetheless.
The final results of the poll are as follows:
Which do you believe?
Evolution. 13.0% (225)
Creation. 86.7% (1501)
I don't know/care. 0.3% (6)
Total votes: 1732Below are a list of those posters who attempted to violate the integrity of the poll. The last byte has been changed to protect the guilty (but if you mail me I will talk):
165.76.125.*** - Voted for Creation 990 times.
63.175.96.*** - Voted for Creation 399 times.This is a somewhat appalling revelation about the honesty of certain extremists of the Creationist side. I admit I had not expected this, if anything I would have expected those who place such a high value on literal interpretations of the Bible to have a well developed sense of ethics and not desire to dishonestly inflate the prominence of their beliefs. I am enlightened by this experience.
For those who are interested the adjusted results after discarding the 1387 false votes by these 2 most egregious respondants are:
225 - Evolution
114 - Creation
137 Posted on 03/01/2001 11:02:59 PST by Godel
There you have it; as I said if this poll can be outfoxed so that overvoting is possible, don't be surprised if a handleful of brazen, mendacious posters avail themselves of the chance to alter the outcome to their liking.
crickets
Thanks for posting that. Good information.
and were did I say any of that?
Did I say you did?
I didn't realize you thought I was your psychiatrist. Need a referral?
You should probably follow your pre-'realization' instincts and quit second guessing yourself.
They were so brazen, they even laid out their entire plot on an anti ID website.
Biology is a process ~ life itself ~ not something you "believe".
Buck up man ~ I simply used "biology" in it's primary sense ~ not that of a course of study ~ and you just went out of your nut attacking what you believe to be, what? ~ an enemy of the state?
And you tell me you're not into metaphysics?
Totally ~ you are acting just like those yahoo Moslems who refuse to understand what the Pope had to say and just keep dwelling on the words he used ~ they weren't in the order liking to the Moslems, so they rage against him.
Anyway, rage on. It's your nickel.
Science may not be a democracy but our country is and our countries schools belong to the people, and not to self-appointed science censors or authorities. The question asks only whether or not the other side in a scientific controversy should have the opportunity to be heard by our young people in the schools which those young people's parents, not the self-appointed "experts', pay for. It's astonishing that the question even needs to be asked.
I worded the poll, as a suggestion, and realized that that word to which you refer should probably be struck. But it was too late. The poll was up, almost instantly. In any event, with the word in, I would think it would reduce the vote for creationism/ID. It is clear that those that frequent this site, have views about what should be taught in science classes, that is tough to classify as science, by a margin of about 3-2. America is a land of deep religious faith, fundamentalist faith - an outlyier in the developed world, way out. Polls of Americans in general are only marginally different on this issue from those expressed on this site. We should remember that.
"Biology is a process ~ life itself ~ not something you "believe"."
Logus-study. Bios-creatures. You can call it modern "study of" biology. Same thing, but redundant.
Like astronomy, biology is a field of science. Like astronomy, biology is rooted in mystic/supernatural past. Today(at least in the west), both have become rational and have rid themselves of supersitions. My point is that evolutionary theory(not creation philosophy) is a fundamental part of modern biology.
This is not a "scientific controversy." "Teach the controversy" is a PR stunt, not anything that has to do with science.
It is a flat out lie to say there is a major "controversy" in evolutionary sciences.
Here is the contents of the latest issue of American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Volume 131, Issue 2, October 2006):
See any "controversy" here?
This "controversy" is made up of whole cloth to try to fool school boards who don't know any better. Its not in the real scientific publications, but merely on the creation "science" websites.
What a farce. And you seem to believe it!
Thats a bit obsessive.
Dont you have to restart explorer and empty offline content/cookies to revote?
I agree with Ann Coulter: "I would say teach the one theory that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution."
For all practical purposes (and with all due respect to Coyoteman, and science in general) that's exactly what theory means.
Here's the definition (per Coyoteman's post) of theory again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Take particular note of the underlined:
"A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."
That means, no matter how well substantiated the explanation is; no matter how organized and accepted the system of knowledge may be; no matter how many facts or laws are incorporated; no matter how testable the priniciples are; no matter how long the accepted history and the confidence it inspires....It all, very well, could be a false premise. which again, for all practical purposes, amounts to nothing more than speculation and conjecture...regardless of how complex, impressive, or elegant it may seem to be.
You are arguing from wishful thinking rather than a rational basis.
If all of the tests have been supporting a particular theory, for, say, 150 years, do you think its safe to bet the rent money against that theory?
Take a look at the changes in the overall theory of evolution in the last, say, 50, years. Not much, eh? Minor details here and there, some elaboration in particular areas. Even the entire field of genetics did not change any important details.
Nothing I would be willing to bet the rent money against. But maybe you like the long odds...
It depends. It depends on whether, or not there's a Constitutional reason for the intervention. In this case there is. The matter is whether, or not science class and the matters of science are to be corrupted with religious influence and nonscientific claims founded in and based on religion and religious motivations. The answer is yes, because the 1st Amend. forbids it as an establishment of religion. IOWs no one is to corrupt science with nonscientific religious claims and nonscientific claims based on religious motivations.
Both creationism and ID are nonscientific. Both claim the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. That is not what is found scientifically. If you want to teach that to your kids, enroll them in a parochial school, or homeschool them. The first Amend. forbids forcing religion though the public school system.
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.