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.

[muawiyah]

BTW, there's yet another instance of this in Canada. Guy spent ages getting his idea accepted, but then one day the folks realized the boulders they were looking at weren't exactly "rafted in" on the ice!

They were "tumbled".

[Jaguarbhzrd]

What?

Scientific work can be verified, it can be repeated, the evidence can be shown.

This is called science, and peer review.

An experiment in science is repeatable, over, and over, and over again.

Which is why science is important, and why it does not have to be taken on faith.

All you have to do is understand the perameters of the experiment, have the equipment, and you too can repeat any scientific experiment there is.

[PatrickHenry]

The list of outright insanity goes on and on and on and on ...

Maybe we'll have a poll on adding those items to science class. The results may be the same as for creationism.

[betty boop]

"Should a view be taught/should a view be allowed to be taught?" is not the right question. Maybe this is a valid question for a classroom in the former Soviet Union, but not for America. There should be freedom of intellectual inquiry.

Well said, FreedomProtector!

What a dismal story you relate. :^(

And yet probably pretty representative of the state of biological science teaching in the public schools today, where indoctrination rules. And not just in science classes.

Thanks for an excellent essay/post!

[unlearner]

Empirical evidence is given for the death and resurrection of Christ. These are historical facts which science cannot contradict. They are more certain than any other historical events. The scriptures record eye witness testimony by many people. Many witnesses suffered cruel deaths without recanting. Many others were enabled by the power of God to endure in their faith in spite of tremendous persecutions.

Luke 1:1-4

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them to us, who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, That you could know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

John 3:11-12

Truly, truly, I [Jesus] say to you, We speak what we know, and testify what we have seen; and you receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Acts 4:18-20

And they [the high priest and other religious leaders] called them [the apostles], and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot do anything other than speak the things which we have seen and heard.

2 Peter 1:16-18

For we [the disciples] have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came a voice to him from the excellent glory, saying "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased". And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mountain.

1 John 1:1-3

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have carefully examined, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and testify, and show to you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;) That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

We have present empirical evidence of the resurrection of Christ. It is that God's Spirit lives inside those who believe. A person can experience this by obeying the Gospel's commands to repent and rely on Christ's death in our place to save us from death.

1 John 4:12-16

No man has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwells in us, and His love is perfected in us. By this we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because he has given to us His Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God has to us. God is love; and he who dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him.

If you believe JFK and Lincoln were presidents who were assassinated, you should be able to, on the same basis of historical evidence, believe the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Christ. I know Jesus is alive because He lives in the hearts of believers, including me.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

And there are Muslim fanatics blowing themselves up with suicide vests, does that also make them right?

Good grief.

They gave their lives for their religion, so they must have been right.

Same stuff, different religion.

[Dimensio]

Empirical evidence is given for the death and resurrection of Christ.

You cannot use a source that claims the existence of eyewitnesses as evidence that said source is correct. You are employing circular reasoning.

If you believe JFK and Lincoln were presidents who were assassinated, you should be able to, on the same basis of historical evidence, believe the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Christ.

You have not demonstrated the same level of historical evidence for your claim. You have cited a single text. That the text claims that the events that it describes were witnessed is not evidence that those events actually occured.

[jerri]

No, I consider ignorance throwing out the FACTS of science. One can believe in the creation of the universe by a creator..the same creator who made the 'soul' of man in his own image and likeness, without throwing out the science of the universe. You see by throwing out the science...your questioning Gods motives, techniques and not living up to his expectations of the inquisitive sentient being he breathed life into.

Thank you, I agree with you here.

[Stultis]

I'm confused. Why do you write of "peer review" wrt a high school biology class? I can't figure what your getting at with that. You also write of "freedom of intellectual inquiry" almost as if the high school classroom was were scientific theories and principles were developed, debated, honed and tested, rather than a place of introductory education about the results of scientific inquiry.

[unlearner]

"And there are Muslim fanatics blowing themselves up with suicide vests, does that also make them right? Same stuff, different religion."

That's not even apples and oranges.

It is entirely different to have a reasoning belief based on evidence, and to have an irrational belief system based on dogma.

It is also entirely different to be unwilling to renounce one's faith even in the face of torture and death, compared to attempts to coerce people to adhere to your religious beliefs and kill them and yourself if they refuse.

You are comparing true religion with the antithesis of it. You are comparing God centered faith with Satanism. And yes, Satanic religion comes in many disguises: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, AND Christianity (any many others). Just because people call themselves something does not make it so. You can tell who is truly a follower of Jesus because they do what He did.

Matthew 7:21-23

Not every one [who calls Me] Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name? and in Your name have cast out demons? and in Your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work iniquity.

[jerri]

Which view is probable? Which view is most likely true?

Thank you FreedomProtector, those are questions that should be asked.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Sorry, Unlearner, but every religion is convinced that they are the one true religion, and everyone elses religion is the spawn of Satan.

It is not a convincing argument.

Creationism is not a reasoning belief based on evidence, it is indeed an irrational belief system based on dogma.

You have no other evidence besides the bible to back up your beliefs, this is called circular reasoning, and is unacceptable in a scientific context or discussion.

The only evidence there is for creationism is the bible, the bible is correct because it says it is. Sorry, doesn't hold water in an evidence based, scientific context.

[editor-surveyor]

"The "law of abiogenesis" is either A,B, or C:"

Shame on you for aiming that shot so far above his head!

[Quix]

You have cited a single text.
= = = =

Goodness! Your ignorance is showing.

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN

1, 2, 3 & 4 . . . texts by 4 different witnesses. Add in Paul who was also alive at the time . . . for a 5th.

Add in the OT prophets who predicted dozens of specific things about Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection . . . calculate those REPEATEABLE odds . . .

It's not for lack of evidence that there's a problem.

It's for lack of submission to GOD ALMIGHTY and a compulsive need to rationalize and justify rebellion that's the problem, imho.

[js1138]

Shame on you for aiming that shot so far above his head!

This coming from someone who post links to articles that contradict his points.

[PatrickHenry]

Latest Poll Results

More than 400 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 3,459 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) 1,090 votes
No (keep creationism out of science class) 592 votes
Total freeper votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 1,682

Percentage voting "No" is 35.2%

[balrog666]

Which one is the True one again?

[atlaw]

Well said, FreedomProtector!

And yet probably pretty representative of the state of biological science teaching in the public schools today, where indoctrination rules. And not just in science classes.

So I take it you disapprove of rigorous academic standards?

[SoldierDad]

The interesting thing about my children (4) is that while they all tried to "kill" each other (not really, but you understand) while growing up, they are all each other's best friends as adults. There is not one thing any one of my children would not do for each other. I'm sure I don't know how I have been so fortunate to have such wonderful children. I wouldn't trade any one of them away for love or money (not enough money in the world to equal their value).

[unlearner]

You cannot use a source that claims the existence of eyewitnesses as evidence that said source is correct. You are employing circular reasoning.

Not so. When Peter writes that He heard God speak from heaven and saw Jesus transfigured and radiating glory, Peter IS THE EYE WITNESS. And his writing IS the record of it.

There is also a long continuous chain of witnesses over several generations. So it is silly to assert that Jesus was not a real person, or Paul or Peter or John, etc. Everyone who makes these claims is pushing an agenda, and is a hypocrite because they are accusing others of pushing an agenda. We have the actual words of Christ and the apostles recorded and preserved for us in the scriptures.

Why do you think Christianity spread so rapidly immediately after the brief time of Christ's teachings, His death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven? Other religions offered financial advantages or enticed men with sex. Christianity had none of that. The message advocated a life of self denial and suffering. Converts expected persecution, not health and prosperity. Answer: it was a true message brought by men and women who had personally seen the things they were proclaiming. People from all walks of life found hope and meaning where it was not before. They heard the message, or confirmation of it, from eye witnesses.

What else do you think eye witness testimony is? Peter is not present here to speak for himself. He knew that he would die by martyrdom before the return of Christ because Jesus told him so after Jesus rose from the dead. (See John 21:18.) Peter recorded his testimony so we could have a firsthand account.

1 Peter 1:14-15

Knowing that shortly I must put off this tent [my body], even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me. Moreover I will endeavor that you may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

You have cited a single text.

The Bible contains many texts from many authors who wrote over a large time span. That is hardly a single source even if they are collected together. Further, extra biblical writings tend to support the history contained in the Bible. There is no contemporary and reputable historical source that contradicts the accounts of Christ's life or the apostles for that matter. There are no historical artifacts that contradict the scriptures either.

You will not find a non Christian record of the resurrection of Christ because to believe this historical event is to be a Christian.

That the text claims that the events that it describes were witnessed is not evidence that those events actually occured.

Firsthand, eye witness testimony is evidence. It is historical evidence. It is also the type of evidence that is accepted in a court of law. It is also similar to the type of evidence science uses: namely observations which are documented and recorded.