Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by 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.
r/no/know/
How about parents knock some sense into their little darlings so when they get to school they have enough discipline to sit down and do their work?
From listening to some of the rationalizes for including religious teaching in science class, you'd thing children were raised in creche by the government.
Almost 200 more votes have come in since my last update; but the percentages are pretty much as I reported earlier. Prior FR polls typically receive around 6,000 votes before they're ended. This one now has 3,205 votes, so it seems unlikely that the trend will change very much.
I'm ignoring un-registered voters. They're not freepers, and they seem remarkably opinionated. Their rate of "undecided" or "pass" votes is about half that of freepers, and all of the difference in decisiveness shows up in their percentage of "Yes" votes. An interesting pattern. Aside from that, we know that freepers can only vote once.
Therefore, the important votes are from registered freepers, and in particular, those who have expressed an opinion on the poll question, so I'm also ignoring their votes for "undecided" or "pass." Freepers with an opinion have voted as follows:
Yes (put creationism in science class) 999 votesPercentage voting "No" is 36.0%
No (keep creationism out of science class) 563 votes
Total freeper votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 1,562
Red herring is good, especially pickled.
Pretty radical idea that, LC! ;)
From listening to some of the rationalizes for including religious teaching in science class, you'd thing children were raised in creche by the government
Quit makins sense, darn it! We HAVE to blame The Gummit else we have to take the blame ourselves!
Have you checked to see if we have any CR/ID Pole Pounders?
Youve heard of Dick Dawkins? PZ Myers?
I keep wondering why life science class has to talk about biblical creation. Are people going to want to talk about Noah's flood in earth science? What happened to Sunday school?
Just what do you think evolution is? Mutation provides the variation and selection provides the change in frequency.
These have been observed.
Or are you talking about some particular tenet of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution?
I think they are looking for weekday school to be Sunday school. Again, easier to get the State to teach religion than it is to do it yourself.
Oh dear!
Well it happened to the last Poll.
OOps -- I mis-spelled Poll. But it passed Spell Check!
You are trying to distract the debate away from my point. The topic of this thread is not about loud-mouths like Richard Dawkins. My opinion is that Dawkins is wrong. But so what? This thread is partly about the negative perception that kooks who believe in UFOs, magical mystery petroleum, and newage healing are going to give the modern conservative movement. Look at all the crazy carp on this thread. FR is a pretty high-profile site. Junk like this is just going to reinforce the (mistaken I hope) perception that Republicans are anti-science.
According to the poll, one out of every three freepers believes science education is fine the way it is. Biology in life science class, and geology in earth science class. On FR in general and on this thread in particular, people who think like I do have been characterized as nazis, commies, Al Qaida terrorists, idolators, etc.
What are the possible effects of alienating a third of the potential voting base?
No one says science contains all the answers to life, and the purpose of our existance.
Interesting blog. Never seen it before. My sense is that it, and your posts, are laced with not a small amount of hyperbole. No one is trying to "tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs" as you say. This strikes me as mildly paranoid.
No, bioflavinoids are not'added' except by God. They are in the fruits, and the only vitamin C that is effective is made from real fruit, not synthesized.
Attempts are now being made to symthesize many of the bioflavinoids, and that is a stupid mistake.
What the heck does the BB have to do with biological evolution, which is what Dawkins was talking about?
But yes, the BB has a fair bit of evidence that it is correct. The BB and Abiogenisis really have little to do with the study of how organisms speciate.
My attitude is, if the creationists had not sought to become a target by science, by targeting science, this would not have happened.
If the creationists had left their religious dogma in church, instead of trying to get it taught in a science class, we wouldn't be having this debate, and the Creationists wouldn't feel like they are being persecuted by scientists.
When a religious dogma is pounded politically into a science class, science can and will fight back, because to have dogma replace evidence and the scientific method, is to destroy science, and dumb down our kids to the point of lunacy.
Creationists wish to quit being persecuted, perhaps they ought to quit persecuting?
Do you believe human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?
God the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting God, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain.
-- British Orthodox Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz (1872-1946)
From your homepage
No one says science contains all the answers to life, and the purpose of our existance.
I posted articles and statements from scientists that think otherwise
800?
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.