Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls
Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

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.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; curriculum; evolution; god; intelligentdesign; schools; scienceeducation; teachers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-352 next last
To: John H K
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.


41 posted on 05/05/2004 2:06:54 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
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.

42 posted on 05/05/2004 2:11:58 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
> 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?
43 posted on 05/05/2004 2:18:12 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Floyd R Turbo
> 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.
44 posted on 05/05/2004 2:20:04 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
> 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.
45 posted on 05/05/2004 2:24:14 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
> 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?
46 posted on 05/05/2004 2:26:53 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
placemarker
47 posted on 05/05/2004 2:28:54 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
>>>
> 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

48 posted on 05/05/2004 2:30:17 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
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?

49 posted on 05/05/2004 2:33:13 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
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!

50 posted on 05/05/2004 2:38:44 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog (I am HairOfTheDog and I approved this message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
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.
51 posted on 05/05/2004 2:42:29 PM PDT by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: Floyd R Turbo
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.

54 posted on 05/05/2004 2:49:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: HairOfTheDog
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.

56 posted on 05/05/2004 2:52:24 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Floyd R Turbo
Please read it again, slowly.

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

57 posted on 05/05/2004 2:53:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Last time I checked, Project Steve had ovewr 400 real scientists

At least 401 now. I just recruited another Steve.

58 posted on 05/05/2004 2:55:12 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
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!

59 posted on 05/05/2004 2:58:00 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog (I am HairOfTheDog and I approved this message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
>>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
60 posted on 05/05/2004 2:58:34 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-352 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson