Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[DallasMike]

Well, a few more actual biologists than I expected (though many are from small/obscure/non-prestigeous colleges) but the list is still mostly people only tangentally related to evolution.

My experience is that chemists (that was my original degree) are especially doubtful of the claims of evolution. Most of us have no religious problems with evolution but many of us do have problems with the claim that, say, 12 proteins magically appear in the same place at the same time and (name your bodily function) happens.

According to the current theory of evolution, one would expect us to have thousands of currently useless proteins, etc. in our bodies just waiting around to become useful. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Everything seems to (gasp!) have a purpose.

[DallasMike]

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.

Genesis is mostly about who created us, not how we were created. I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create every living thing. My problems with the theory as currently taught are scientific, not religious. I think that science would be much better off if the big pushers of evolution admit that the current theory has some serious problems.

[orionblamblam]

> Are you implying that evolutionary models have done the basics for showing how chemistry has done the evolution model?

Non sequitur. Please try to keep up.

> Darwinists won't admit the warts on Darwinism

I'm not sure how many "Darwinists" there are these days. "Evolutionists," sure, but not too many "Darwinists."

> there are those that just "parrot" Darwinistic dogma

Creationists?

[orionblamblam]

> If you can't handle the First book, First chapter, First verse: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, any excuse to flee from God will do.

Please point out why adherance to what is obviously allegory is necessary for belief in God.

[orionblamblam]

> many of us do have problems with the claim that, say, 12 proteins magically appear in the same place at the same time

No scientist makes such claims. Only Creationists make such claims.

> Everything seems to (gasp!) have a purpose.

Indeed, because anything extraneous tends to be bred out of existence, or it kills the "host," and thus the trait isn't propogated. Yet another bit of evidence for evolution.

[orionblamblam]

> Everything seems to (gasp!) have a purpose.

Sidenote: Assume "Creation."

What purpose for the appendix? Or the useless genetic "junk" in the human genome? Or nipples on men?

[Junior]

placemarker

[Dark Knight]

>>>
> 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... <<<

Ahhh, you made a claim about the mechanism for biogenesis and then ran away. Is that the kind of keeping up you want me to do? Personally I don't mind that kind of foolishness. EVO/CREVO threads do it all the time.

Of course it is non sequitur, if you redefine non sequitur to include: I don't like the logic of my statement, don't bring it up.

>>I'm not sure how many "Darwinists" there are these days. "Evolutionists," sure, but not too many "Darwinists." <<

Now you're denying Natural Selection as a mechanism too! Woo hoo! Let's have a party!

EVOLUTIONIST DENIES NATURAL SELECTION
News at eleven.

Evolutionary theory is now: Things change.

DK

[RightWhale]

teaching the scientific evidence both for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution

They vote on science in California? How about quantum physics? Do photons exist in California?

[HairOfTheDog]

Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Of course! Teach Darwin, teach 7-day Creation, teach Intelligent Design, teach any other possible theory out there and let the class discuss the differences. It isn't that hard. They did it when I was in school, and all the theories are interesting. I would want my kid to know and consider all of them!

[mgstarr]

On this day in history:

May 5 1925

High school teacher John T. Scopes is arrested for teaching evolution by authorities in Dayton, Tennessee. Since Scopes admitted teaching the theory, he was found guity, and the law remained on the books in the state until 1967.

[Right Wing Professor]

Scientific proof has nothing to do with "endorsements

I agree. So why didn't you post this in reply to the original article's claim that 300 'scientists' (loosely defined) reject evolution?

Scientific theories are proven with facts, not votes. On that basis the theory of evolution has no foundation.

Dream on.

[Right Wing Professor]

Of course! Teach Darwin, teach 7-day Creation, teach Intelligent Design, teach any other possible theory out there and let the class discuss the differences.

There are over 300 distinct Native American creation stories. Gonna teach all of them?

Funny thing is, guys like this complain how little gets taught in public schools, and then want to load up the curriculum with J. Random Creation-Myth when they can't get through the biology curriculum as it stands.

[Right Wing Professor]

Please read it again, slowly.

Why? It's stupid. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

[Right Wing Professor]

Last time I checked, Project Steve had ovewr 400 real scientists

At least 401 now. I just recruited another Steve.

[HairOfTheDog]

There are over 300 distinct Native American creation stories. Gonna teach all of them?

I think it is interesting to discuss what the tribes in your area believed, from a historical standpoint.. One of our tribes here in W WA believes that clams live under the sand because they were horrible gossips and the other animals got fed up with their trouble-making and buried all of them. There are a lot of good moral lessons in some of it, and it is interesting!

[Dark Knight]

>>Why? It's stupid. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.<<

Then why isn't everyone absolutely convinced? Is is because Natural Selection is the theory, and evolution is the phenomena? And Darwinists can't even make the distinction?

DK