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.”
Except that it makes predictions, and many (ie all that have been tested) of these predictions have been shown to be true.
For example
The intermediate forms between (other) apes and people, if they are preserved as fossils at all, will be found in Africa. (Darwin)
There were intermediates between terrestial mammals and cetacians (whales, dolphins, etc), and also betweeen land mammals and syreniae (manatees, dugongs, etc).(Darwin)
If a pseudogene, transposon, etc, is found in the genome of people and orangutangs, it is also in chimps and gorillas.
If a pseudogene, etc, is found in cows and whales, it is also in hippos.
Ditto for cats, dogs and bears
No fossil elephant will ever be found in Hawaii
No fossil mammal will ever be found in Cambrian rocks
Precambrian life existed (Darwin)
No fossil intermediate between birds and mammals will ever be found.
And many many more...
All of these predictions are true. Pretty good for a "feeble theory", heh?
Could you please substantiate this claim? It's not any part of biology as I know it.
Quite true. One of many examples where (Genesis-based) creationism's predictions are wrong (the most famous being the world-wide flood, which was disproved many decades before Darwin).
ID, OTOH, is incapable of making any predictions, since any pheonomenon whatsoever is compatible with "the designer did it", assuming a sufficiently powerful designer.
You asked for my prediction. I made a prediction. It's not predicated on the assumption that antibiotics will always work the same way they currently do, so the 'rather dumb assumption' is dumb on your part, not mine.
Given selective pressure, resistance will evolve.
So you now have an argument that NS can be killed by Intelligent Design, in non evolutionary ways because..
We've been intelligently designing antibiotics for a long time. Most of the variant penicillins are a result of intelligently designed chemical modification of the basic molecule. Resistance evolved, nonetheless.
Any antibiotic, by any mechanism. There's enough of a range of possibilities in the proteome that something, by some mechanism, will allow differential survival of part of the population, and that's all you need.
Which genes and why? What are the functions of those genes that you are predicting and why are you predicting them in particular?
You want more prediction? OK. The ribosomal proteins, which code for the organelle which does protein translation, will have a very small number of differences with humans; possibly even zero. Essential respiratory enzymes will be almost as conserved. I expect limited but important differences in some developmental genes; particularly those for brain development. Non-coding regions of the genome will have a much higher rate of mutation.
I am very glad you are retreating into the genetic science part of biology.
There is no retreat. The science of evolution is now centered in population genetics and molecular biology. If you had gotten any closer to the literature than 'Science News' you'd know that.
Plus Planet of the Apes.
Put ME in!! I can score --- I just KNOW I can!!
Dummies.........
Duhhh....
I guess I should read ahead before posting.
(Nawh... that would be too time consuming...)
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.