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.”

[bondserv]

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.

Maybe you might consider leaving the debate to those who chose to engage, rather than waste your precious time sarcastically putting your finger in the eye of those you disagree with.

For your information, as I predicted 2 years ago, there will continue to be a groundswell of scientists who begin to dispute Macro-Evolution using real scientific method. Scientists are becoming disillusioned having to dance around like politicians.

[Right Wing Professor]

For your information, as I predicted 2 years ago, there will continue to be a groundswell of scientists who begin to dispute Macro-Evolution using real scientific method. Scientists are becoming disillusioned having to dance around like politicians.

Just 2 years ago? You're way late.

Meanwhile the number of biological or geological scientists called Steve who endorse evolution draws further and further ahead of the number of loosely defined 'scientists' who reject it.

[bondserv]

That is well said. Nice pick there.

[bondserv]

Meanwhile the number of biological or geological scientists called Steve who endorse evolution draws further and further ahead of the number of loosely defined 'scientists' who reject it.

With a stable of ten's of thousands that is documentation of the failing support.

Just 2 years ago? You're way late.

Look at the signs, FR has more and more post's where evolution is being refuted by reputable modern scientists. Choose to ignore the change in momentum if you like. The momentum is being stimulated by a lack of support in the recent genetic blueprinting, so spare us the, "momentum is not an indicator of truth" bit.

P.S. Long time no Freep.

[Right Wing Professor]

With a stable of ten's of thousands that is documentation of the failing support.

Steves are 1% of scientists. They still outnumber the mediocrities and drop-outs on the Discovery Institute list.

Look at the signs, FR has more and more post's where evolution is being refuted by reputable modern scientists

I've yet to see one.

The momentum is being stimulated by a lack of support in the recent genetic blueprinting

Huh?

A philosophical question, bondserv. As an ex-Catholic, I've never understood the protestant mind. Does a careless or even tendentious disregard for the truth, in your ethical system, count the same as a lie?

[Dark Knight]

>>Look at the signs, FR has more and more post's where evolution is being refuted by reputable modern scientists

I've yet to see one.<<

Then doggone it, let's FR have a debate. RWP has challenged a kinesiologist's credential's, let's let him kick @ss right here. But there is risk involved. RWP has already challenged the challenger. How can we make it fair, and keep the $10K impartial?

DK

[Right Wing Professor]

What's this fixation with money, DK? You think the only incentive or risk in life is financial?

[bondserv]

Try Here as posted by Michael_Michaelangelo in post #4 of this thread.

[Dark Knight]

Not willing, as everyone thinks. I know you could win that debate in any objective terms.

You're afraid.

You excoriated someone online that was not able to defend themselves. Not very heroic. Risk a bit. If you challenge someone, make it real. Actually challenge them.

You carped on the $10K. It was not his failing. It was yours. You wanted to bet a dollar. Five minutes of time or less, if you can't bet something substantial, you aren't in the game.

You aren't, obviously. But you want to pretend you are.

Fantasies are great.

Debate this guy or humiliate yourself in public. You brought it up. Be a man and finish it. Or back off. I still think you would clean his clock.

It is what is required,debate him. Like a real scientist.

You carped at the money. "tis a shame"
DK

[bondserv]

Struggles in science [Evolution education in Arizona]

No evolution for Italian teens

CNN Accused of Fabricating Controversy in Missouri Evolution Story

Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

Georgia considers banning 'evolution'

Ohio board OKs criticism of evolution

Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House

Opponents of origin theories plan presentation [Montana schools & Evolution]

ELIMINATING ERRORS: Evolution becomes topic of concern for voters

Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures

Three year compilation of "reputable" science journals puzzlement of new discoveries in science

[Right Wing Professor]

You getting a cut on this, DK? I don't trust people who claimed to be interested in science, but ducked, once the money was off the table. I think there's a 80% chance they're engaged in fraud. And I don't trust you, 'friend'. Deal with it.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh great, a link dump. You telling me somewhere in that pile of garbage there are reputable scientists? Sorry, I don't do dumpster-diving. See if you can find one or two of those links that actually addresses the point at issue, and get back to me.

[Right Wing Professor]

As I've posted before, these guys don't compare favorably, in quantity or quality, with Project Steve .

[Elsie]

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

  Who am I to say whether that dog has a concept of God, many dogs have given their own lives willingly to protect humans.

 

Then we just rachet this question down one notch to:

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

 

 

 

(The basis question is: "If there IS no god; why have we 'evolved' this concept?")

[Elsie]

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.

But BOTH sides tend to do the same thing.........

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Also, the credentials of the scientists came under fire. A very accomplished scientist is the First Name on the List.

I believe he was called a "crackpot" and a "crank" by a couple of the evo's.

Henry F. Schaefer III was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1944. He received his B.S. degree in chemical physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966) and Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Stanford University (1969). For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. During the 1979-1980 academic year he was also Wilfred T. Doherty Professor of Chemistry and inaugural Director of the Institute for Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Texas, Austin. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. His other academic appointments include Professeur d'Echange at the University of Paris (1977), Gastprofessur at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochshule (ETH), Zurich (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002), and David P. Craig Visiting Professor at the Australian National University (1999). He is the author of more than 950 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[bondserv]

An Example of Specificity

The DNA/RNA coding system must arrange the amino acids into specific sequences to form each required protein.  While similar to letters of an alphabet in sentences, only a specific sequence of amino acids will produce the essential result.  The precision of this sequence is its specificity.  Since they involve a fixed alphabet in very specific sequence, it is quite straightforward to mathematically analyze the specificity. 

One of the most important proteins - perhaps the most important - is hemoglobin.  It is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing.  The Torah notes that "life is in the blood."

The formula for hemoglobin is detailed in Figure 2:

In the chart there is only one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin.  Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia being but one example.)

Using the formula for alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10650 permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.

(The actual number is 7.4 x 10654.   There are indications that some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant.  The current research indicates that these may be up to 10% of such positions, which would indicate that there are only 516 rather than 574 significant amino acid positions, in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10503.)    
This is still a pretty good finite approximation for infinity!  The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. 

(In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10500+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 1017 seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe, so you would have had to work rather quickly.  Also, realize that there are only about 10 66 atoms in the universe, so you can't waste material on false tries!)

Think about it.  It isn't just unlikely; it really is impossible.  It was very skillfully designed.  If you really want to be a skeptic, you need to practice like the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass , who said:

"I practice believing impossible things at least twice day...[check]"

It takes a lot of commitment to blindness and fallacies to be an atheist.  There are, of course, no dead atheists (James 2:19).

If someone claims to be an atheist, ask him to prove it.  It must include a claim to know everything - since God could be hiding behind any area of knowledge the claimant has overlooked...

I personally don't have the guts to gamble my eternity that the Bible might be wrong.

Link

I am being intellectually honest in saying that I have never tried to deceive you. The more we understand, the more foolish evolution is.

[longshadow]

kinder, gentler placemarker

[DannyTN]

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

I don't claim to know what is in people's minds, except for what they tell me and except for what the Bible says is in their minds.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Second name on the list of dissenting scientists:

Dr. Sigworth

"How do I see the scientific enterprise? An old book puts it this way: one generation commends God's works to another. It is a great privilege to unravel the workings of ion channels, and to pass on the excitement about these molecular machines to students, colleagues and anyone else who will listen!"

Stanford University (1969-1971), Electrical Engineering California Institute of Technology (1971-1974), Applied Physics. Concentrated on semiconductor physics with Professor C.A. Mead as advisor. Received B.S. with honor, 1974. Graduate study at the University of Washington (1974-1975) and at Yale University (1975-1979) under C.F. Stevens, working on conductance fluctuations in nerve membrane. Received Ph.D. from Yale in 1979. Post-Doctoral Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung (1979-1981), and continued as a Research Associate (1981-1984) in the laboratory of E. Neher at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany.

=======================

"WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”

~Dissenting Scientists