Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

SEATTLE, MAY 3 – Recent California voters overwhelmingly support teaching the scientific evidence both for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to two new surveys conducted by Arnold Steinberg & Associates. The surveys address the issue of how best to teach evolution, which increasingly is under deliberation by state and local school districts in California and around the nation.

The first survey was a random sample of 551 California voters living in a household in which at least one voter voted in the November 2002 general election and the October 2003 special election for governor. When asked: “Which statement is closest to your view about what biology teachers in public schools should teach about Darwin’s theory of evolution,” 73.5 percent replied, “Teach the scientific evidence for and against it,” while only 16.5 percent answered, “Teach only the scientific evidence for it.” (7.9 percent were either “Unsure” or gave another response.)

The second survey was a random sample of 605 California voters living in a household in which the first voter in the household was under 50, and in which at least one voter voted in the November 2002 general election and the October 2003 special election for governor. When asked: “Which statement is closest to your view about what biology teachers in public schools should teach about Darwin’s theory of evolution,” 79.3 percent replied, “Teach the scientific evidence for and against it,” while only 14.7 percent answered, “Teach only the scientific evidence for it.” (6 percent were either “Unsure” or gave another response.)

“Although recent voters in California as a whole overwhelmingly favor teaching both sides of the scientific evidence about evolution, those under 50 are even more supportive of this approach,” said Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute. “These California survey results are similar to those of states like Ohio and Texas, as well as a national survey undertaken in 2001. The preferences of the majority of Californians are also in line with the recommendations of Congress in the report of the No Child Left Behind Act regarding teaching biological evolution and a recent policy letter from the U.S. Department of Education that expressed support for Academic freedom and scientific inquiry on such matters such as these.”

The margin of error for each survey was +/- 4 percent. Both surveys were conducted by Arnold Steinberg & Associates, a California-based polling firm, and released by Discovery Institute, a national public policy organization headquartered in Seattle, Wa. whose Center for Science and Culture has issued a statement from 300 scientists who are skeptical of the central claim of neo-Darwinian evolution.

“The only way the Darwin-only lobby can spin these kind of survey results,” added Chapman, “is to claim that the public is just ignorant. But that view is untenable in light of the more than 300 scientists who have publicly expressed their dissent from Darwinism, to say nothing of the many scientific articles that have been published critiquing the theory.”

[Oztrich Boy]

See any resemblance?

Not the slightest. One is a picture of Charles Darwin the other is a little x

Do you and "Dr" Kent Hovind, think Darwin was wrong.

Permit me to be underwhelmed.

[Right Wing Professor]

Are you saying that to you, overwhelming evidence is just a few scores of papers?

Sure, if they're repeatable. How many papers do you think have been published, say, on some of the more exotic fundamental particles?

far bwetter, though, I've done the experiments myself. As undergraduates, we took cultures of bacteria, exposed them to mutagens, and plated them out in the presence of penicillin, and presto! We isolated cultures of penicillin-resistant bacteria.

So what am I going to believe, my own lying eyes, or some guy on the net whose sole biological knowledge is obtained from creationist websites?

[Right Wing Professor]

Fine. Just keep your religion out of my science class, and we can live and let die.

[microgood]

The average student will never be a surveyor, so why study geometry? The average student will never be an historian, so why teach history? I could go on with this list, but you get the picture.

When it comes to macro-evolution, its more like astrology than geometry. So why teach astrology?

[K1avg]

If you'd continue reading, you'd notice that the desired picture is one of Karl Marx. Both men were quite brilliant, and quite confused. We've seen the damage Marx's teachings can bring, and Darwinism is just one of many liberal ideas presently tearing at this country's Judeo-Christian heritage.

BTW, I linked to that site because it offers more hard evidence disproving evo than I could ever hope to consolidate in one post.

You are permitted to be underwhelmed per your request, but do not henceforth condemn the majority opinion without factual evidence.

Have a lovely evening.

[Dark Knight]

I've heard of the penicillin experiment, and IIRC there was a minor rearrangment of DNA that resulted in the resistance, not a fundamentally different form of life. Just like the bug with an extra set of wings, a minor rearrangement, not a fundamentally different creature.

So, as evidence, you RWP, intelligently designed a bacterium to be resistant to penicillin, using information other intelligent designers gave you.

You'll have to excuse my rudeness earlier, I did not realize I was talking to a bacterium god.

DK

[PatrickHenry]

When it comes to macro-evolution, its more like astrology than geometry.

Okay. You're one of those who grudgingly (I assume) admit the existence of what you call micro-evolution (which is, after all, nothing less than evolution), but you draw a magic line -- somewhere, somehow -- when it progresses to what you call macro evolution. Fine. As long as you're happy.

[microgood]

Okay. You're one of those who grudgingly (I assume) admit the existence of what you call micro-evolution (which is, after all, nothing less than evolution), but you draw a magic line -- somewhere, somehow -- when it progresses to what you call macro evolution. Fine. As long as you're happy.

I do not grudgingly agree with microevolution, since it is observable. Macroevolution is not observable. To me it is the nature of the evidence, not just believing what I want to believe. I know physics works because I can watch the space shuttle take off.

Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Okay.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

It was a joke. I apologize if you took it personally, but I don't even know you or any member of your family.

[PatrickHenry]

Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

I respectfully submit that you've been misinformed: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

[happydogdesign]

As Trollia Creationatis evolved, it found a digital niche in which it baits the logical and sensible, and derives sustenance from the pixels hurled its way.

[ChevyZ28]

"Uh-huh. Like the "theory or relativity?" I look forward to your after-action reports from when you try to argue with a nuclear bomb that it can't be a fact."

The theory of evolution, unlike the theory of relativity, has NEVER been proved to be factual.

[happydogdesign]

You do not appear to understand what is meant by scientific theory. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

[DallasMike]

No scientist makes such claims.

Oh, please. You don't know many scientists, do you?

[Right Wing Professor]

Fine. I didn't understand it anyway.

[Dark Knight]

That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.

I made a change in a bacteria, therefore all flora and fauna respond similarly.

I found a single example of speciation, therefore it is true for all species.

Without a rigorously defined mechanism, it pablum. Hardly a satisfying or robust theory.

I had to stop reading the 29 evidences for macroevolution because you could change a few words and say it was evidence for Intelligent Design. Just like the philosophical arguments for the existence or nonexistence of God. Semantic drivel that does not advance science or man one whit. If you cannot use NS as a predictive or quantitative model, it has limited usefulness as a theory.


RWP, predict something about NS that has not been seen, and will be according to NS? Of course the more trivial the prediction, the more trivial the theory.

DK

[happydogdesign]

Your gratuitous assertions, reliance on obvious logical fallacies, and willful ignorance and perversion of even the terms and language of scientific theory indicate that you are incapable of any serious, truthful discussion.

[microgood]

I respectfully submit that you've been misinformed

I actually read some of it. They author admits common descent is a hypothesis like abiogenesis. The problem I have with his logic is that it states basically that all life is similar in design so it came from one species.

But it is still possible that we all had basically the same design but were created at the same time. And the only way they can prove the point is from a lot of historically dug up stuff, a totally different place from where the evidence of microevolution comes from, transitional species, seawater hogs, timelines, etc.

It becomes essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy which begs the original question.

[DallasMike]

Fine. Just keep your religion out of my science class, and we can live and let die.

Only a few fringe elements want to put religion in the science class, and I'm not one of them. The poll was whether evidence contradicting evolutionary theory ought to be presented in science classes. Real scientists shouldn't have a problem informing students about some of the problems with current evolutionary thinking.