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.”

[mgstarr]

I was speaking about heretics in general though and not specifically evolutionists. Burning at the stake was the ultimate penalty for an unrecanted heresy during the first Inquisition in 1233, though it was uncommon.

Cheers!

[DannyTN]

I was speaking about heretics in general though and not specifically evolutionists. Burning at the stake was the ultimate penalty for an unrecanted heresy during the first Inquisition in 1233, though it was uncommon.

I wouldn't burden all Christainity or creationists with the Roman Catholic church leadership during the dark ages. Even the Roman Catholics have admitted that some of it's leadership during that time was flat out evil.

[RipSawyer]

You believe what you believe Danny and I certainly don't want to try to change your belief as I imagine it is a comfort to you.
I work hard and sleep well and I am at peace with myself and the universe, I wish the same for you.
Best wishes,
Rip

[RipSawyer]

"Why have we 'evolved' this concept of a GOD? Animals don't seem to have one..."

I fell to thinking about the second part of your question and I don't know how you would determine whether animals have a concept of God, I have seen a Rottweiler stud, a male of a breed of dog considered by many to be unworthy of human trust exhibit more concern for the welfare of a toddler that he had never seen before than the child's own mother seemed to display. I also know that small children have been ripped apart by dogs, this seems to indicate to me that animals (and strictly speaking humans are animals anyway) may exhibit the same range of behaviour and emotions as humans. Who am I to say whether that dog has a concept of God, many dogs have given their own lives willingly to protect humans.

[DannyTN]

Indeed, because so many Christians have been fooled by Satan into believing Creationism, and their faith is so weak that they must try to make everyone else conform to a belief system that they *know* is silly. In such situations, no tactic is out of bounds, from appeals to fear to deception.

It's not so silly when you analyze it. There are basically three belief systems: Earn your way to heaven, Atheism, be forgiven.

If God is a perfect Holy God who knows no sin, and if He judges by His own standard and not some bell curve of humanity, then it is reasonable that God will find us guilty.

It is also reasonable that God through his foreknowledge has already judged us and declared that there are "none righteous" like the Bible says. If so this rules out option 1, earning your way.

If God exists, and has in fact revealed Himself to man, that rules out #2 Atheism.

That leaves forgiveness. If there is only one plan for forgiveness. Then Christianity alone is the answer to man's sin delimma.

It's not about "faith being weak" and finding comfort in everyone else believing too. It's about loving your neighbor enough to broach the subject, knowing that you will probably have to endure his insults for doing so. But doing so anyway for the long odds that he might just listen.

[DannyTN]

Scopes springs to mind. And of course, daily examples throughout schools and families world-wide. In Lakewood, CO, in about 1998, there was an attempt to get the school board to force teachers in science classes to also teach religion, on pain of termination; this, however, failed to pass. Such laws as this still exist and continue to pop up here and there

That's pretty mild compared to the persecution of creationists in post 183. Our children are taught the evolution religion in public schools and the alternative sciencific theory of intelligent design is routinely denied to us.

It's definitely the creationists who receive the brunt of the persecution today. The article that this thread was based on was on just that over 70% of the people want their children taught that intelligent design is an alternative explanation. But the evolutionist religion somehow manages to maintain a stranglehold on the public schools and get's evolution presented as gospel.

[orionblamblam]

> One of us is in error.

That would be you. You are claiming to know what is in people's minds. You are just flat wrong.

If you are wrong on such a basic thing, and falsely hold yourself in such high regard for having made such an incorrect leap... then there is no point in debating with you further. You cannot be helped.

[PatrickHenry]

Does this Law already exist and have a name?

Haven't heard of it. There's Godwin's Law, according to which invoking Hitler or Nazis to attack your opponent results in an automatic loss. I suppose condemning your opponent to hell could be covered by a corollary.

[orionblamblam]

> There's Godwin's Law

That's what I was thinking of at the time. Since I've seen this happen so many times, I'd assumed someone had already staked a claim on it, but you never know.

In any event, I'd say the utility of Lowthers Law is not as a way of saying "I win!" but of saying "My God you're dull and repetative and not at all clever, and I'm bored debating with you." But that's just me.

[PatrickHenry]

"My God you're dull and repetative and not at all clever, and I'm bored debating with you."

Yes, but then we'd get a whole list of laws for dealing with a never-ending list of dumb debate tactics. And invoking one of them would only bewilder your opponent. It's much easier, at least for me, to recognize that when a poster makes an ignorant claim like: "There's no evidence for evolution," and I give him some links pointing him to some information to help him out, only to be told: "I can't wait 'til you stand in judgment and learn how wrong you are!" I just have to accept that I'm dealing with an incurable ignoramus. At that point I break off the conversation. He's happy in his righteousness, and I'm happy to stop wasting time.

[orionblamblam]

> At that point I break off the conversation.

See, there, ya go, being all reasonable...

Anyway, what I was suggesting was that invoking that law would indicate termination of discussion. But that is, I imagine, a bit vainglorious. Almost as bad as claiming to know that the reason why people don't believe as I do is because they're rebelling...

[PatrickHenry]

See, there, ya go, being all reasonable...

In my early days on this forum I was far more combative. Those were the days before we had moderators. Great days. Lots of fun. Now, I'm a kinder, gentler PatrickHenry. Anyway, when breaking off the conversation -- something you must do! -- you could always announce your reason if it makes you feel better: "Well, if you're going to say X, then I can see there's no reason to continue, so I'm dropping out of our debate." But your opponent will almost always respond with some lame claim to victory. That used to bother me, but I now see how utterly predictable it is, so I just let it go. It's fine with me if he wants to tell his buddies about the time he "defeated" some "Darwinist" on the internet.

[orionblamblam]

> In my early days on this forum I was far more combative.

I guess I'm still there. Somethign in my nature won't let go of an injustice or someone promoting an intellectual obscenity like Creationism.

The weird thing is, Conervatives are supposed to be the ones who are in opposition to the sort of unthinking superstitious loopiness that Liberals revel in so much. When they say, "We can lower crime by taking away rights," we want to see evidence of it, and will not accept BS. But when it comes to Creationism... some Conservatives just can't see past that one book that they're told is inerrant, I guess. it's sad, and does not bode well for Conservatives. That's one reason why I get so ticked off, I guess.

[Dark Knight]

>>The creationists love their debates, until someone takes them up on it. Some alleged kinesiologist offered to debate anyone, on evolution, a while back, for $10,000, I took him up on it, with the only proviso that the debate be for $1 rather than $10,000 (quite frankly, I don't trust you guys where money or anything else valuable is involved). When the money was off the table, he wasn't interested. Curious.
Yeah, I can see the NAS sending some Nobelist out to Wichita State at short notice, to debate someone they likely consider a crank.<<

But you didn't take him up on it. You changed the terms. You assert trust issues about the money without a clear reason, and call him a crank. And you did not even have the courage to actually do it.

I suppose those are all good debating techniques, and I'm sure you can use them all. No one here questions your intellect. Just your personality.

It must be sad to live in fear of being shown up. All that bravado, show and bluster, but you did not do it. You could have had fame and fortune, women at your beck and call. But you didn't.

But now you trumpet your failure, in a cloak of bluster, changing just enough of the facts to warm that cloak, you didn't debate.

Would of, could of, should of. Men of action don't say these things.

You have a lot of guts to call him an alleged kinesiologist, away from his challenge you "almost" took. Heck, invite him here to debate you!

I'm sure you could risk $10,000 in front of all your friends. And I am a friend. I love your knowledge when you tell me about something I can check out. It's is really marvellous!

You just do it in such an @ssholish way.

DK

[Dark Knight]

To RWP,

If I didn't make this clear, I think you'd clean his clock, so have someone neutral hold the money, and get the neutral judging thing down.

DK

[Right Wing Professor]

But you didn't take him up on it. You changed the terms. You assert trust issues about the money without a clear reason, and call him a crank. And you did not even have the courage to actually do it.

You want clear reasons?

(1) What has money got to do with it?

(2) I've never met a creationist who wasn't, fundamentally, a liar. Why should I trust him? It turns out, he claims to have a degree from a program which didn;t exist.

The issue, surely, is scientific truth. Why complicate it with $10,000?

I'm sure you could risk $10,000 in front of all your friends. And I am a friend. I love your knowledge when you tell me about something I can check out. It's is really marvellous!

No, bud, you're not my friend. Nothing personal, but I'm very careful about then people I call my friends.And I'd love to be rich enough to call $10,00 chump change, but I ain't,

[Right Wing Professor]

Sorry, but I don't FIND the above at the link you provide.

You can't find because you ain't looking. Find me a single OT manuscript dated to the 5th century BC.

[microgood]

I believe you should concentrate on extending your own lifespan as I feel fairly confident that you must wait a very long time.

Alexander Pope, in his 1733 Essay on Man (Epistle i, 1.95), offered this insight on the problem:

Stolen from http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/ss/topics/hope.html

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come
Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way,
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topp'd hill, an humbler heav'n.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks. I'm not into money. I play poker for nickels and dimes; I have (long ago) lived on winnings. $1 is enough to make it interesting.

[Dark Knight]

But you didn't. You chose to take this forum to ridicule him. But you weren't up to his challenge. You are not a man of action.

I love what you teach me, and I do learn. You're an @sshole, from your demeanor. I consider you friend, in that I can learn from you. But I never want to take on your personality.

And I do believe you could take him for every cent of his $10,000 even if is was portioned out penny by penny.

But you didn't.

That is not important. After you declined his offer, you claimed victory. I don't care about your after the fact reasons. He had a challenge. You weren't up to it.

Make him eat his words. You have that kind of intellect. I know that. You are not a piker. Don't sell yourself short. Make sure the terms of judgement are fair.

But if you don't believe...

Being pants on the city square is embarassing, but if you really believe you are right...

Gamblers know, if you're not willing to put up a little sacrefice, you're toast. They'll find your little telltale signs and have you for lunch. But you're not gambling.

I may not be your friend, but you are mine. I don't necessarily have all my friends at my house, but I do recognize when someone helps me to grow. You have. But I still believe in your flaws. And they will keep you from being that hardcore intellect with precision, you want to be. But if you aren't forced to face each perceived limitation you will never advance your boundaries.

Heart, knowledge, organization or action.

You did not act. You could have. $10k for a prof is a priority decision. Excuses are fine. But you brought this challenge up. It is your growth, that requires the challenge. You brought it up. It is part of your persona. You can clear it up, and again, I think you would clean his clock. But you did not act.

Your conflict is now: Are you a coward?

Kick his @ss, get $10K

Or hide. Go away. Never say someone else is less intellectually formed than you are. You have lost the bragging rights. Teach, but never again, pontificate. You are just some non risk taking, second tier, teacher, that can't do.

As for friendship, maybe true friends should have told you some of the above. Go in peace.

DK