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.”

[orionblamblam]

> Certainly how we got to be on this planet cannot be explained by evolution

Nor can it be explained by aerodynamic theory. Biogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution. What happened AFTER life arose... *that* can be (and is) explained via evolution.

[orionblamblam]

>Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity ... the atomic theory...

Wow. I know of nobody outside of the Creationist realm who makes such comparisons. Those are silly, and point out that this is nothing more than a strawman arguement, and a weak-a$$, lame one at that.

Evolution does not follow a set of equations, but it is clearly seen. Predictions based upon evolutionary theory are regularly made, regularly tested, and regularly shown to be valid (i.e. "I predict that a transitional fossil between X and Z will be found."). To claim that biological evolution does not occur because it does not follow strict mathematical rules is as goofy as claiming that history or erosion or global climate change on the megayear scale do not exist.

Evolution is not a fundamental force of nature like gravity or the weak nuclear force, but is the *result* of the interactions of a very, very complex set of variables.

[mgstarr]

These threads always seem like some strange combination of Groundhog Day meets Inherit the Wind .

[Dark Knight]

I've always thought that the statement that biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution was one of the biggest cop-outs of biology.

Darwinism is the theory, not evolution. Evolution is the phenomena being studied. The basic wrongness in the evolutionary argument is confusion between what is the theory and what is being studied. Chemistry is not a theory, but phenomena that is studied.

Major tenets in Darwinism have been refuted. The birds on the island, under close scrutiny, actually do interbreed. Etc. Some parts of Darwinism, to my surprise, have been shown, like the plant Goatsbeard evolving into a species that can interbreed with only with younger versions, and not older (speciation).

But as earlier pointed out
http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/fs_evo_essay.html
the current evolutionary model (Darwinism) has some problems as a workable theory. If it is not a working theory, it has limited scope, mostly related to the first part of the essay, as a way of catagorization of the fossil record.

Darwin fanatics see much more, Creationist see much less, and I hope more stuff from geneticists will puzzle them both, like the vitamin C stuff: What do Fruit bats, gerbils, and the great ape family have in common?

DK

Leaving biogenesis out of the whole evolution thing does one thing that is fascinating...opening the door for Intelligent Design as the beginning.

[orionblamblam]

> an attempt to explain away God.

Actually... Creationism does that. Nothing so drives away people of reason from faith in God quite like the utter irationality of things like Creationism.

[dangus]

Actually, their objections to evolution were by far the most intelligent I've read. I've tended to find anti-Darwinian unreflective Creationists, desperately trying to fit the round pegs of objective study into square holes of their ideology. This group does not do this. Although it does not really propose a solid alternative to Darwinism, it makes its points where I must concede their accuracy.

Creationism loses its credibility when it tries to argue that the Earth is young, etc. Traditional biology textbooks lose credibility particularly when the talk about such things as the endosymbiotic hypothesis. THe truth is Darwinism can only be proffered as a mechanism for one organism growing into another organism; it does little to explain the Pre-Cambrian development of life. (To be fair, I must point out that these scientists falsely claim that science books typically do not mention the Cambrain explosion.)

The reason I have never bought into Intelligent Design, however, is this: It doesn't explain what *did* happen. While an important critique of modern biology, it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.

[muleskinner]

Calling Vade...Calling Vade Retro! Yet another food fight!

[orionblamblam]

> the current evolutionary model (Darwinism)

Uh... Darwin died a century ago. Evolution has evolved and improved sicne then. Pointing out that Darwin had some incorrect notions on some of the details or the precise nature of the mechanism does nothing to refute the fact that natural selection drives evolution.

> Leaving biogenesis out of the whole evolution thing does one thing that is fascinating...

Yup. It shows how chemistry, workign independantly of any biological or intelligent influenece, given time and energy, can create all manner of interesting order and chaos. Or did you mean...

> Intelligent Design

Ah. So you're a Raelian?

[js1138]

As Einstein used to say, if they were right, it would only take one.

[orionblamblam]

> The reason I have never bought into Intelligent Design, however, is this: It doesn't explain what *did* happen.

Oh, SURE it does. Intelligent Design can tell us that in the distant futre, a superintelligent race of cloned aliens will develop time travel, go back in time twenty billion years, and create the Big Bang and then seed the universe with genetically programmed life.

What, you don't believe that? Have you no *faith*?

[RipSawyer]

"And another thing - a theory can't be a fact. I would venture to guess that nearly 100% of scientists would tell you that."

As a young Navy man I studied "the theory of electronics", does that mean that electronics is not real and radios don't work? You and millions of others need to get a grip on the meaning of the word theory, hint, it is not what you think it is.
Your argument reminds me of people who laugh when someone calls a spider an animal, as if arachnids were not animals, you simply are displaying your own unawareness of the real meaning of the word.

[ArGee]

“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.

I disagree totally. I don't believe that evolution explains the origin of life at all, but I still have problems with the questions as written.

The question asked whether you should teach scientific evidence both for and against, or only for. Naturally most people will want the "fair and balanced" view of teaching both for and against. But the naturalists don't accept that there is any scientific evidence against. Their version of the question would be more like, "Teach scientific evidence for and religious evidence against, or only teach the scientific evidence for?" That question would create a very different answer.

Shalom.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

We certainly have quite a menagerie of evo's here already!
I would expect the "A-Team" of Darwin Central to show up soon.

[Dark Knight]

>>Yup. It shows how chemistry, workign independantly of any biological or intelligent influenece, given time and energy, can create all manner of interesting order and chaos. Or did you mean... <<

Are you implying that evolutionary models have done the basics for showing how chemistry has done the evolution model? Egad, a mechanism unrelated to Natural Selection.

>>Ah. So you're a Raelian?<<

No, I believe in dentists.

I just find it funny, that Darwinists won't admit the warts on Darwinism, and just as funny how the Creationist won't explain some of the more incredible aspects of ID.

Of course when hard science biologists, like the genetic kind start finding out real mechanistic explanation for the new model of evolution, I think it will be great.

Evolution has depended on soft science taxonomy for "proof', and has suffered credibility problems from that mistake. They compounded the problem by denying the errors.

I find these threads to be an interesting time waster. There is an occasional new bit of evidence, that can be fascinating. Then again, there are those that just "parrot" Darwinistic dogma that are as boring as liberal radio.

DK

[DallasMike]

It's a trick question. There is no scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution!

You're right because as soon as a contradiction is found, the theory changes. Thus, the theory can never be wrong because it is, by definition, always right. Some say that's how science always works but that's not true. Theories are dumped all the time when facts turn up to contradict them.

It doesn't contradict my Christian beliefs if we really did evolve from protozoa. The Bible says much about WHO created us but little about HOW he created us. However, as a scientist, I find some of the claims of evolution as it taught today to be tenuous. Many scientists much smarter than I am have problems, too.

Unfortunately, the history of the theory of evolution has more flip-flops than John Kerry.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.”

Last time I checked, Project Steve had ovewr 400 real scientists (which excludes Dembski and Meyer) called Steve who endorse evolution. Discovery Insitute is falling further and further behind.

[ArGee]

I think these people are onto something also:

If we can get away from demagogery for a bit, the idea that life came from non-life, otherwise known as abiogenesis, is the biggest problem that non-evolutionists have with the current bundle of ideas classified as evolution. The second biggest problem is the idea that living things, not to mention their interrelationships, appears to be the result of a directed, motivational force rather than the simple reaction of elemts to the laws of physics.

It is probably true that I can't give you a good scientific explanation for why abiogenesis seems to be such an unreasonable conecpt, but that would be a limitation of my ability to explain myself scientifically, not a limitation of the problem I have. Similarly, I may not be able to scientifically explain how Mt. Rushmore is obviously the work of a directed, motivational force while the former Old Man in the Mountain on Mt. Washington was obviously not. Again, that's a limitation of my ability to explain, not of the concept I am trying to explain.

In my opinion, it is self-evident that natural forces don't organize elements into living things, and especially into complex systems of living things. The fact that finch offspring display a preponderance of different kinds of beaks depending on the kinds of food available in different environments finches inhabit does not make it any less self-evident. All the wishing in the world won't put the claim that I am wrong on the same footing as the claim that the world is round.

Shalom.

[RipSawyer]

"That's right. It's only a feeble theory contrived (and defended) as an attempt to explain away God."

I don't see it that way at all. If I take a machine apart and write my theory of how it was built I may be right or wrong but I am certainly not arguing against the existence of the builder of the machine. I see the theory of evolution the same way, I don't think that anyone with an open mind can argue that evolution does not occur in any form but there is room for disagreement on whether it accounts for the existence of man. I would never argue against the existence of God but I do refuse to believe that the creation story of Genesis is actual reality. I see Genesis as just another version of man's attempts to account for the unaccountable. Some people are simply unable to live with the fact that there are some things we cannot be certain about. I have been to church and heard preachers argue against attempting to explain the world through the use of reason, all the while ignoring the fact that the faculty of reason must have been given to us by the same God who created us. The fact that human reason is open to failure in no way proves that a creation story handed down from a wandering desert tribe is incontrovertible fact.
Please note that I have in no way said that man was not created by God, only that we do not know the facts of how we came to be here.
Even if I accept the evolutionary theory in its entirety, I still would have to leave open the possibility that that was God's way of doing things and that is a question that I regard as unprovable one way or the other at this time.