Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[PatrickHenry]

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?

You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.

[DoctorMichael]

Voted: No, ID/Creationism should NOT be taught in Science classes as a competing theory to Evolution as there is no evidence for ID/Creationism, as opposed to Evolution, and in addition, ID/Creationism is not a Science as it produces no verifiable data, only criticism.

More to the point: I find it sad that the Conservative Movement has come to this. It has been something I've warned about.

[DoctorMichael]

.....The cheating was revealed because a large number of votes had originated from only two different IP addresses. One of the individuals involved in the fraud admitted his actions and remained unrepentant in his attempt to dishonestly alter the apparent opinion on the subject. Removing all votes from those two IP addresses yeilded a result favoring the theory of evolution.......

"Liars for Christ"

~or~

The Ends justify the Means; Stalin and Lenin would be proud.

[fml]

I passed. I do believe it should be taught, however not as competing science - Faith is not science. Rather as one more piece of information for the children to be exposed to.

[Elsie]

137 Posted on 03/01/2001 11:02:59 PST by Godel

Ok; that was more than 5 years ago. How's THIS poll going?

[Thatcherite]

Few on the evo side would object to your position.

[VadeRetro]

My reasoning in voting "No" has often been explained on these threads. Science classes should be about what science is telling us about the world and its workings. Nothing else belongs in there.

When there's a controversy in science, science knows about it before the people in school board rooms do. It will naturally be in the relevant science textbooks, covered as a controversy with some statement of the points for each side. This will happen without people outside of science forcing science to "teach the controversy."

If cult literature is telling you about a "controversy" in science that the scientists being quoted therein don't themselves see despite the seeming text of their statements, then that material is wrong, probably deliberately so. The quotes are out of context or even fraudulent. There are details the author is keeping hidden or is too ignorant to know in the first place.

We really don't need--and cannot afford--to let snarkily dishonest cult members into science classes to confuse kids who haven't been taught the basics of science yet.

As a side issue, the implications of hijacking conservatism into an unwinnable war on "the universe, its workings and history" make my head spin. (Thanks a bunch, Ann Coulter!)

[Liberal Classic]

Given that this poll suggests more than one out of every three freepers is a supporter of currently established science curricula, could we please not be refer to as commies, nazis, terrorists, atheists, idolaters, liars, and cowards?

[PatrickHenry]

Given that this poll suggests more than one out of every three freepers is a supporter of currently established science curricula, could we please not be refer[ed] to as commies, nazis, terrorists, atheists, idolaters, liars, and cowards?

You ask way too much of those who demand that creationism/ID should be thrust into science class.

[longshadow]

*****165.76.125.*** - Voted for Creation 990 times.*****

Thats a bit obsessive.

Dont you have to restart explorer and empty offline content/cookies to revote?

In that particular poll, there was nothing to prevent "Chicago voting" -- but it was detectable, by looking at the log and viewing the IP addresses of the people who voted. That's how the two mendacious anti-Evos were caught.

One can only hope that the current poll ALSO logs IP addresses, and that FR Management will similarly announced any instances of over-voting, and correct the results at the end of the poll.

[Liberal Classic]

Having been at the receiving end of such treatment, I can tell you it is unpleasant.

What are the possible ramifications to modern conservatism in general and the Republican party in general of this treatment?

Let's assume the poll accurately reflects the opinions of the FR membership. This is not necessarily a safe assumption to make, as polls are open to manipulation. However, let's assume that the computer code for the poll has some reasonable protections against such manipulation.

This imples one out of every three freepers opposes the teaching of "intelligent design" in science class.

Let's make another assumption. Let's assume that FreeRepublic is a broad cross-section of the conservative moment and therefore is an approximation of the views of those people who tend to vote Republican. This is also not necessarily a safe assumption. It is my sense (though I have no firm data) that FR is more conservative than Republican-leaning swing voters, and even somewhat more conservative than registered Republicans taken as a whole. This would tend to skew the results against the supporters of "intelligent design" but I am not going to go with this assumption.

Assuming that FreeRepublic is a moderately accurate sample of potential Republican voters, I ask what are the potential ramifications of referring to those people who oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution as nazis, commies, terrorists, atheists, idolaters, liars, cowards, and homosexuals, if those people represent fully one third of the Republican base?

[PatrickHenry]

One can only hope that the current poll ALSO logs IP addresses, and that FR Management will similarly announced any instances of over-voting, and correct the results at the end of the poll.

The poll results shown on your "My Comments" page are a bit misleading, because they're a blend of the votes of both registered freepers and others. When you hit the "Details" button you get a different picture.

It's very interesting that there is a significant variation between the voting of registered freepers and others. Close to one-third of registered freepers -- who can only vote once -- are voting "No" (don't teach creationism/ID in science class). The voting for the past 12 hours has been roughly 55% or 56% "Yes" and 32% or 33% "No." About 10% are undecided or pass.

But among non-freepers, who may have less stringent controls on the number of votes they cast, it's different. Over 63% of those votes are "Yes" and only 6% are undecided or pass. That's a strange pattern.

Why are the non-freepers apparently so much more committed to the "Yes" vote (teach creationism/ID in science class), and far less undecided than registered freepers? I leave it to the readers to try to puzzle it out. Presumably, JR knows perfectly well how these polls work and is quite adept at interpreting the results.

[PatrickHenry]

Assuming that FreeRepublic is a moderately accurate sample of potential Republican voters, I ask what are the potential ramifications of referring to those people who oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution as nazis, commies, terrorists, atheists, idolaters, liars, cowards, and homosexuals, if those people represent fully one third of the Republican base?

Your question answers itself.

[balrog666]

Strange pattern placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Strange pattern placemarker.

Strange, but so very predictable. And the more it persists, the more obvious it becomes.

[RightWingNilla]

In that particular poll, there was nothing to prevent "Chicago voting"

LOL. But still, some creatinoid sat there and clicked the same button 900 times. I think most well adjusted people could find something else better to do with their time.

[self_evident]

I wish it were more, but I'm pleasantly surprised that a third of freepers are of that opinion.

It shouldn't be surprising. I guess maybe it is. But for every Coulter or Steyn there is a:

Krauthammer: "Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God."

Or Will: "The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum."

or Buckley:
Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Yes."
Whether schools should raise the possibility--but not in biology classes--that man was created by God in his present form? : "Yes, sure, absolutely."
Which classes that should be discussed in: "History, etymology."

Note: this link leads to a subscriber-only section of TNR. But, oddly, if you go to google and type "Buckley evolution the new republic" you will be linked to the full article.

I am most like Derbyshire: "I’ll also say that I write the following with some reluctance. It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring."

Which explains why I so infrequently post on these threads. I'm glad there are those, like yourself, that do. But it shouldn't be forgotten that there are other respected conservatives who have similar views.

[furball4paws]

According to Aristotle, plants weren't alive because they didn't have souls. A very, er, um, "odd" idea".

[freedumb2003]

Darwinism is the only scientific theory that seems to be immune to questioning and critical inquiry.

Have at it. So far, there have been no credible questions or criticism of TToE.

And please stop using that hakneyed phrase "critical questions" or "critical thinking." That is substitute code for "I don't understand it therefore it is wrong."

[muawiyah]

Hmm, astronomy once more stepped out into the great unknown when the visible universe dropped below 5%(with "dark energy".

[freedumb2003]

I ask what are the potential ramifications of referring to those people who oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution as nazis, commies, terrorists, atheists, idolaters, liars, cowards, and homosexuals, if those people represent fully one third of the Republican base?

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and just note that the people who throw those epithets are a small percentage of FReepers who don't understand TToE.

But your point is well-made.