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.

[js1138]

I don't get my info from health food hawkers. I get it from the scientific literature.

I googled his doctor and found, as expected, he has it backwards. His good doctor won the Nobel prize for discovering that ascorbic acid is vitamin C.

Who's surprised?

[HKMk23]

...much of the data that they present is false...

If so, then focus on the data; give it a critical peer review and stop there. Most won't. Most will carry on from there to the ad hominems.

...involves a great deal of unjustified, unsupported assumptions...

ALL of the current THEORIES of origins have their share of "unsupported assumptions". This is the dominant reason why origins is more phiolosophy than science; which assumptions you embrace and reject is directly linked to your philosophical position going in.

...specifically trying to fit collected data to satisfy a predetermined conclusion is inherently unscientific...

True, but simply demonstrating how the very same collected data be interpreted diferently to support a different position is not a compromise of the data nor of its method of collection. ALL data gets interpreted after it is compiled. The simple fact the two people see the same valid data set and provide different interpretations speaks only to their individual philosophical positions prior to interpreting the data, it says nothing of their being sceintific or not.

I show you a picture of two cars, one in front of the other, the one in front with a smashed read-end, and the one behind with a smashed up grille. You might interpret the data as the result of a rear-end collision. I could equally well interpret the data as the result of someone backing up without paying attention. Neither of our interpretations speak to the validity of the data, and without further information, we must each concede that the other could be correct.

I don't see this going on in the real world. I see people who wholly understand the philosophical underpinnings of their positions and are ao unwilling to have those come under any assault, that they will brook no competition for their chosen theory of origins.

In fact, both sides can read the above and see themselves as above that; that the assertion only applies to "the other guys".

Finding the truth is a lost cause, here. Somebody's got it somewhere (and everyone will jump out of their seats, here, to say "Yeah, OUR team") but nobody's going to listen to them; least of all if it turns out that it ISN'T their team.

END GAME: STALEMATE with extremem prejudice.

[spunkets]

"Who's surprised?"

Me. Before this, I had no idea who IDed vitamin C. It looks like Charles King had a great deal to do with it also. Ya learn something new every day.

As for the bad info posted, it comes from someone who claims the theory of evolution is a philosophy and has nothing to do with the science of biology. I'm not surprised at anything else that would accompany that post.

[js1138]

Was I there? Ha!

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9e7e897658.htm#8

I even had the wording of the poll changed.

Now where, exactly was editor-surveyor? He says he was there, but the evidence is lacking.

[HKMk23]

You can review my posting history for past instances of drum-banging to figure this out, or you can just take me at face value when I tell you that I'm not here to bang that drum.

I AM here to make a casual observation of some behavioral similarities that do not speak well of the professionalism of those evidencing said behaviors.

My simple observation is that voices are being shouted down on the basis of their philosophical position, without regard to whether their data and/or the interpretation of it may be correct. In fact, it has grown so bad, that underlying philosphy has become a basis for rejection of research, peer review, theses...on and on. THAT isn't the unbiased world of science, that's one philosphy waging holy jihad against another.

AND, FWIW, it certainly isn't a libertarian world where everyman may speak his opinion with freedom and equanimity. Each is now prejudged upon the basis of his preceived philosophy and allowed/disallowed further platform from that point on.

[HKMk23]

P.S. -- With the greatest of respect, Thank You for your service to this Republic.

[js1138]

My simple observation is that voices are being shouted down on the basis of their philosophical position, without regard to whether their data and/or the interpretation of it may be correct.

I would love to see an example of correct data or interpretation being shouted down by freeper evolution supporters.

How can you even find a "correct" criticism of evolution amid all the "ascorbic acid isn't vitamin C" noise. And why don't evolution critics take the nonsense spewers aside and ask them to stop making Christians look like moral idiots?

[HKMk23]

And why don't evolution critics take the nonsense spewers aside...

As if everything promulgated in criticism of evolution is "nonsense"? That assertion stands as the very model of "nonsense". The evaluation of criticism of evolution as "nonsense" is largely determined by the philosophical underpinnings of those making the assessment. Still, I would that nothing would be stated that has no valid data to back it up; neither in support nor criticism of any theory.

..and ask them to stop making Christians look like moral idiots?

So, what you're implying (not so indirectly) is that the root of the problem isn't the science, it's the underlying philosophy.

BTW, the realm of "moral idiots" is certainly not limited; the perpetrators of various hoaxes and the promulgators of misinformation throughout history have found membership despite grave theological conflicts with Christianity.

[js1138]

The evaluation of criticism of evolution as "nonsense" is largely determined by the philosophical underpinnings of those making the assessment.

I suppose, if one's philosophical underpinnings allow falsehood to be considered equivalent to honesty.

I can deal with people who think God set the universe up with the qualities required to make it work as it does. That particular idea doesn't do anything for me, but I don't feel compelled to argue against it.

I can deal with people who think God intervenes in evolution. I think it's a silly idea, but there's no way to argue against miracles.

What I can't accept in debate is false assertions of fact and repeated assertions that the mountains of evidence that exists does not exist. When I see evolution critics slamming down falsehoods, I will be more tolerant of their philosophy.

[Dimensio]

If so, then focus on the data; give it a critical peer review and stop there. Most won't. Most will carry on from there to the ad hominems.

This is likely a result of frustration stemming from giving the same false claims "critical peer review" repeatedly, yet still being confronted with the same false claims in every discussion, often from the same individuals, with no explanation of why the previous rebuttal of the claim was inadequate.

ALL of the current THEORIES of origins have their share of "unsupported assumptions".

I believe that you are confusing religious creation stories with scientific theory. Also, please provide an example of an unsupported assumption in the theory of evolution.

True, but simply demonstrating how the very same collected data be interpreted diferently to support a different position is not a compromise of the data nor of its method of collection. ALL data gets interpreted after it is compiled.

The difference is that science draws conclusions from an interpretation of data, while creationists attempt to interpret data in such a way to support a predetermined conclusion. The former is far less prone to inaccurate interpretation than the latter.

I show you a picture of two cars, one in front of the other, the one in front with a smashed read-end, and the one behind with a smashed up grille. You might interpret the data as the result of a rear-end collision. I could equally well interpret the data as the result of someone backing up without paying attention. Neither of our interpretations speak to the validity of the data, and without further information, we must each concede that the other could be correct.

Actually, it would be logical to first hypothesize that one vehicle collided with the other, then attempt to determine whether the physical evidence supports such a conclusion. If the physical evidence suggests that the vehicles were smashed prior to their positioning, then the hypothesis can be discarded. If the physical evidence supports the 'mutual collision' hypothesis, then further physical evidence can be used to determine whether one of the vehicles was stationary at the time of impact. The nature of science is to continue to seek evidence from which a credible conclusion can be drawn. The nature of creation science is to assume from the start the conclusion and attempt to fit any observations to support that preassumed conclusion, even if the rationale used to do so is not logical, or to discard data that does not fit.

I don't see this going on in the real world. I see people who wholly understand the philosophical underpinnings of their positions and are ao unwilling to have those come under any assault, that they will brook no competition for their chosen theory of origins.

Perhaps you could point out where evidence contrary to the theory of evolution has been discarded for this reason, or where data has been force-fit to support a preassumed conclusion.

[Dimensio]

As has already been pointed out, Dr Szent-Gyorgi determined that ascorbic acid is Vitamin C. Do you have any references that do not contradict your claims?

[muawiyah]

You are, of course, speaking of the "young earth" creationists.

Actually, there aren't enough of them to take over any party, not even Pat Buchanan's party.

Now, if you folks want a challenge, you might go try convincing the Democrats that evolution is possible ~ that they do not have to continue to be drones to the end of their days.

[Impeach98]

My response was to vote "Pass" - only because the question didn't provide an answer for me that I was most comfortable with.

I am not sure that I would want Creationism/Intelligence Design taught as the direct counter to Theory of Evolution, but I would want it taught as an alternative school of thought.

I just don't know if I believe it should be in a biology class or a social studies class or ???

I believe it has its place... it's just where and how that I am not sure of, so it's hard for me to put my thoughts in any of the poll responses other than "Pass"

[muawiyah]

Seal blubber has Vitamin C. So does walrus, whale and other sea mammal fatty tissues.

Exactly what "source" other than animals did you think the Polar Peoples tap for their vitamin C?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

No,I am not talking about just young earth creationists, I am talking creationists/IDr's as well.

They are not scientifically literate, as their stated views show. Yet they wish to force those scientifically illiterate views on people as science, when in fact it is not.

Since they could not do it within a scientific context, they are attempting to do it via a political one, and in the process, attempting to toss those that disagree with them, off the train, so to speak.

Intelligent Design and creationism is not a political issue, it is a belief system, nothing more, it has nothing to with science, and as those that are literate in science, begin to feel the prejudice from those that are not, they will jump off the train, all by themselves.

[muawiyah]

BTW, people who "leave FR" only hurt themselves, particularly if they make it all the way to this thread and give up.

[HKMk23]

I believe that you are confusing religious creation stories with scientific theory.

Nice. Ranks right up there with the venerable, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Hey, gotta split, but thanks for taking FR to a new and lower level. It's been real.

[muawiyah]

Well, yes, that's pretty much the case with some of these guys. I take a totally different third-position in these debates and remarkably get the very same responses from the Evos that the "young earth" crowd does.

They don't even stop for a second to consider that they've developed an exclusionary belief system to rival anything the "young earth" crowd have come up with, else they'd find some new arguments to meet a new challenge.

It's a pretty big universe after all, and within the last week we may well have discovered our first Dyson Sphere, a "fluffy" planet orbiting close to it's dim sun. (see:

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/9/17/7889

Although Dyson envisioned such a sphere encompassing a sun, there's really nothing wrong with a larger sphere orbiting nearby.

Exo and Xenobiology are now high on the probabilities list.

[Dimensio]

Nice. Ranks right up there with the venerable, "I know you are, but what am I?"

I do not believe that you have constructed a valid analogy.

[muawiyah]

Look, Creationists include the entire Catholic Church, all the Holy Rollers, and virtually all the Evangelicals, Reform, Recreationists, and so forth. That would include the Hindus and Moslems as well.

I think you really do have to examine what people believe before you make such a broad statement. The fact is folks who "believe" that "God created the Universe" are, in fact, "Creationists". This includes even those who believe God created Evolution.

Your target is necessarily the "young earth" crowd, else you have no one to be a Conservative or a Republican.