Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls
Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

Posted on 05/05/2004 11:10:33 AM PDT by 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.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; curriculum; evolution; god; intelligentdesign; schools; scienceeducation; teachers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-352 next last
To: happydogdesign
this definition still does not change the fact that the theory of evolution has not been proven. There is not a single person anywhere on Earth who can conclusively say evolution is a fact. For there is as much evidence against it as there is for it. we should change the title for the theroy of evolution to the lie of evolution.

I do understand what a theory is by the way. I hold a degree in electronics. The field of electronics is based almost entirely on theories.
121 posted on 05/05/2004 6:40:54 PM PDT by ChevyZ28 (Most of us would rather be ruined by praise, than saved by criticism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: happydogdesign
Jeez, I love big words. You have encapsulated the reason why NS is not ready for prime time. Everyone can see it, can't you? Prediction is a cornerstone for scientific theory. NS is devoid of consistent prediction. That should give you a clue about it's scientific nature.

Unlike you, I know where evolution is going to be based. Genetics. It really is an uh duh, type scientific question. Mechanism is so important in a theory. NS is weak in mechanism. And prediction. NS is weak in two cornerstones of the scientific method. There aren't that many cornerstones in the scientific method.

I apologize for bringing up basic science, but someone has to. You haven't. And don't even think about shooting that unicorn.

DK

LOL
122 posted on 05/05/2004 6:42:18 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: microgood
But it is still possible that we all had basically the same design but were created at the same time.

If everything were created at the same time, we would find: (a) all fossils would have the same age, but they don't; and (b) all geological rock strata would contain pretty much every variety of living thing, but they don't.

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.

Yeah, so? That's the evidence we have. Do you suggest that it should be ignored?

123 posted on 05/05/2004 6:43:11 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
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.
No one, I think, denies natural selection. When you can turn a bacterium into a kangaroo, we promise to be a little bit more impressed. Out of the hundreds of breeds of dogs that have been bred over thousands of years, all of them are still dogs and all are still capable of interbreeding with each other and with wolves.

124 posted on 05/05/2004 6:46:15 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: 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.

You mean like Newton saw an apple fall, and inferred the motion of the planets was a result of gravitation?

RWP, predict something about NS that has not been seen, and will be according to NS?

I'm presuming you mean evolution here. A NS prediction will be that any new antiobiotic will eventually result in a mutant population of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic.

An evolutionary prediction: the chimpanzee genome will be published this summer. I haven't seen it yet. Most genes will be very close in sequence to human genes; a fair number will be identical; very few will be closer to non-primate genes than human genes, and none will be closer to invertebrate genes than human genes. There will also be no more similarities to furry medium sized animals than can be expected from their phylogenies, despite any superficial similarities of niche or appearance. There will be a close relationship between the layouts of the genes on the chromosomes of humans and chimps, barring one break of a single chromosome into two.

That enough? You want some predictions about other soon-to-be-sequenced genomes?

125 posted on 05/05/2004 6:46:57 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
The poll was whether evidence contradicting evolutionary theory ought to be presented in science classes.

There are none such. There is evolutiuon, and a trojan horse for relgion called 'intelligent design'.

Real scientists shouldn't have a problem informing students about some of the problems with current evolutionary thinking.

When I find some, I will. For example, I do inform them of the speculative nature of theories of abiogenesis. But evolution; sorry; it's as robust a theory as any.

126 posted on 05/05/2004 6:50:45 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: 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.
Well said. I would argue that the diehard proponents of current evolutionary theory do much more harm to science than 10 times as many early earth creationists could ever dream of doing. It's insane to teach that there are no problems with the current theory of evolution. That's indoctrination, not science.

127 posted on 05/05/2004 6:54:30 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: 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. You said 'natural selection'. I gave you an example of natural selection. Learn what the terms you use mean

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

On the other hand, I had a fair idea I was talking to someone who was discussing concepts he didn't understand.

128 posted on 05/05/2004 6:55:16 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (It's my lot as a scientist to be lectured on science by used car salesmen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
I agree with you, and what you said. I, of course, hold to the belief that we are created by a loving God. The Bible says He did it in 7 days. However, I would not begin to argue with anyone what even a day is too God. I can't, you can't, no one can. The reason being is we were not there.
I can not accept we just formed out of a single celled organism starting billions of years ago.

Evolution will never be proved conclusively, because it is based on ideas and concepts in which there just simply is no way to prove through a scientific method. People say because we have similarities with apes, we must have evolved with apes. How ridiculous a claim!!! I have always said, and will always say if evolution is real we should be able to find examples in various forms of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists would argue we are all evolving, it is just so slow we can't see it physically. I say it doesn't matter how slow it is, we should still see evidence of evolution in someone or some animal by virtue of the fact is every living thing is of different ages. An 80 year old woman for example, should have some measureable evolved difference as opposed to me, being a 32 year old man. This whole evolutionary claim is absurd, IMHO.
129 posted on 05/05/2004 6:55:52 PM PDT by ChevyZ28 (Most of us would rather be ruined by praise, than saved by criticism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight

Red Herring theater- Natural Selection means that random genetic changes over time are occasionally advantageous enough for an organism to become more efficient at passing on its genetic material
130 posted on 05/05/2004 6:55:55 PM PDT by happydogdesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
No one, I think, denies natural selection.

Wrong-o. Try this . Or this.

Maybe you should be arguing with those gentlemen?

131 posted on 05/05/2004 6:58:49 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: K1avg
> If I read your post correctly, you said that the "imperfect" traits were either bred out
OR killed the "host." In light of this, the self-contradiction is even more embarrassing.

It was minor-league poor wordsmithing on my part. There is no contradiction.

A useless thing would be bred out of existence through natural evolution if it was detrimental. If it wasn't, maybe it woudl go, maybe it woudl stay. But if there was Divien Creation, there would be no useless thigns to begin with.

This is Self Evident.

> The simple fact that we are imperfect validates the existence of a superior being, does it not?

Uhhh... NO. It's garbage like this that makes no one take you seriously. That and your wacky attempt to compare pictures of Darwin and Marx. LAME, and intellectually dishonest.
132 posted on 05/05/2004 7:01:12 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ChevyZ28
"There is not a single person anywhere on Earth who can conclusively say evolution is a fact."

Things change
There- I just conclusively said evolution is a fact, and I happen to be somewhere on Earth

133 posted on 05/05/2004 7:01:26 PM PDT by happydogdesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Gee RWP,
I heard a clone had a different fur color than it's clone donee.

Genetics is where real science is, as far as biology is concerned.

>>I'm presuming you mean evolution here. A NS prediction will be that any new antiobiotic will eventually result in a mutant population of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic. <<
Which antibiotic and why? What is the mechanism? Crappy and undefined prediction yields crappy and undefined results.

>>An evolutionary prediction: the chimpanzee genome will be published this summer. I haven't seen it yet. Most genes will be very close in sequence to human genes; a fair number will be identical; very few will be closer to non-primate genes than human genes, and none will be closer to invertebrate genes than human genes. There will also be no more similarities to furry medium sized animals than can be expected from their phylogenies, despite any superficial similarities of niche or appearance. There will be a close relationship between the layouts of the genes on the chromosomes of humans and chimps, barring one break of a single chromosome into two. <<

Which genes and why? What are the functions of those genes that you are predicting and why are you predicting them in particular?

I am very glad you are retreating into the genetic science part of biology. After all, I have been very clear, that I "believe" genetics will be the science that really explains evolution. Not NS.

Hail the god of Bacteria!!!
DK

134 posted on 05/05/2004 7:03:59 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
> why on earth would you be afraid to have both sides presented?

What do you mean "both"? Evolution is the scientifically established explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. if, however, you feel the need to include alternate explanations... start with the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths. Don't forget the Hindu versions, the Norse version, the World Ice Theory, hollow Earth, the Raelian version, the Scientologist version, etc.

There are not two "sides." There is the rational view... and then there's the mumbo jumbo.
135 posted on 05/05/2004 7:06:24 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: happydogdesign
You are not funny, LOL. I say as I laugh.
136 posted on 05/05/2004 7:06:44 PM PDT by ChevyZ28 (Most of us would rather be ruined by praise, than saved by criticism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: microgood
>>Biogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution.

>If this is the case, why teach it at all in the schools?

That makes no sense. Greek lit has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Why teach it in school?
137 posted on 05/05/2004 7:08:22 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
> then there are probably 30,000 who are skeptical

What are you basing that on? References, please.
138 posted on 05/05/2004 7:09:14 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If everything were created at the same time, we would find: (a) all fossils would have the same age, but they don't; and (b) all geological rock strata would contain pretty much every variety of living thing, but they don't.

This assumes our age calcs are good and that we have enough data points. They find new bones all the time and have to readjust their previous theories about what happened when. I am waiting for them to find a man in the same strata as a dinosaur. That will really shake them up (they would probably destroy that find).

I do not think what these scientists are doing is wrong in studying this stuff, but their conclusions seem to be greater than the evidence, and since there is no urgent necessity to believe that common ancestry is the fact of evolution, they need to do more digging and less preaching.
139 posted on 05/05/2004 7:12:57 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
That makes no sense. Greek lit has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Why teach it in school?

I would compare micro-evolution to science and have no problem teaching it. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is closer to astrology than aerodynamics. Aerodynamics can be proven in a lab experiment. Macro-evolution is a hypothesis based on dead critters.
140 posted on 05/05/2004 7:16:07 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-352 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson