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.”
Aric's back?
Information was critical to the Creation of life. And as most microbiologists are discovering, (Of which Darwin was ignorant) all of the little creatures are machines with purpose and multiple integrated systems. Lots of the Word in them.
Were they just dumb goatherds?
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
2000 year old highly sophisticated scholar revealed above.
No one says it's true. It's part of the theory of evolution. It's totally consistent with the part you already accept, which you term "micro-evolution." Same mechanisms, more time required. That's the whole thing. It's a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation of the available data. It makes predictions about what kinds of fossils might be found, and what can't be found (such as a pegasus). It's a useful framework for understanding biology. F = ma is a law, which is to say it's a description of what's observed. Sort of a distillation of observations. But it's not an explanation. Theories (or explanations) are, of necessity, on less firm ground, and are always capable of being disproved by newly-discovered data, or newly-formulated explanations that fit the data better.
By the time of Christ, they'd had >200 years exposure to the Greeks. From what I remember of discussions with Alamo Girl on the book of Enoch, c. 200 BC, it showed Hellenistic influences.
I read somewhere, maybe Will Durant, that when the Greeks and Jews first encountered each other in a big way, during the time of Alexander, each culture was fascinated by the other. Many Jews adoped Hellenic culture, and (according to Durant) the Hellenes wrote that they had discovered a nation of philosophers. Clearly (aside from theology) the Greeks were way ahead at the time of the cultural encounter. No nation ever had a collection of people like Aristotle, Euclid, Archemedes, etc. The US came close, during the Revolutionary period.
I haven't put a lot of study into the Cambrian, but I don't think it's all that much of a mystery. The creationist websites make a big deal of it, as if it boggles everyone's mind, but I don't think it does. It followed an ice age, and perhaps a mass extinction, so there were mostly empty niches that could be filled. The appearance of several new body types wasn't all that sudden, certainly not "at the same time." The Cambrian period involved millions of years, which for primitive animals is tens or hundreds of millions of generations. And not every body type appeared in the Cambrian. Mammals, reptiles, birds, and even insects, for example, came later. But it was a time when several new types appeared, and contrary to what you may have heard, ancestral forms have been found in earlier strata. Nothing about the Cambrian contradicts the theory of evolution. Nothing quite as productive has happened since, because when vacant environmental niches get filled with flourishing species, in the absence of another mass extinction it's difficult for several significantly new types to get very far without becoming food for something already there.
Humans 'fill' all kinds of 'niches' as well, and we've evolved nothing to be able to do so.
Are you willing to gamble that the Quran might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that the Vedas might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that the Upanishads might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that the Bhagavad-Gita might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that the Dhammapada might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that Book of Mormon might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that Dianetics might be wrong?
Are you willing to gamble that the Book of the Dead might be wrong?
You are making the same bet againse each one. Each claims to be the One True Way. Do you have a criterion for deciding which you prefer?
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.