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.”
Post #45: "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."
Post #46: "What purpose for the appendix? Or the useless genetic "junk" in the human genome? Or nipples on men?"
Odd...Perhaps while you're at it you can explain away the Second Law of Thermodynamics for us, too?
See any resemblance?
Yes. If I read your post correctly, you said that the "imperfect" traits were either bred out OR killed the "host." In light of this, the self-contradiction is even more embarrassing.
You do know what "tend to" means, do you not?
It's garbage like this that makes no one take you seriously. We can have an intelligent debate, or we can throw mud at each other. Your choice.
But if God did it... imperfection means an imperfect creation and thus an imperfect God
Horrendous non sequiter. If we had been created perfect, then WE would BE God, correct? The simple fact that we are imperfect validates the existence of a superior being, does it not?
What, between pictures of Darwin and a red X?
It's a picture of this loser:
But a red "X" works just as well.
Anxiously awaiting your reply...
Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days. Correct interpretation of the Hebrew allows for "days" to be allegorical for much longer periods of time.
An old earth, but one where macroevolution did not occur, is most consistent with scripture and makes scientific sense as well.
Now you're grasping at straws. Many of these stories are fanciful and fun to read, but bear no resemblance to the world in which we live. Creation by a Being infinitely superior to ourselves is the only rational explanation for existence. Mankind's spirit agrees with this, but our rebellious nature seeks to deny God. Irritating, but true.
I also think that we could assume that God knew more about Creation than he outlined in Genesis. It isn't a recipe... it doesn't describe ~how~ it was done, only that it was. What did he leave out? - everything man at that time couldn't understand. Perhaps he would explain more today, with our relative advancements in Science, and perhaps he would still have to talk to us as if we were children in our relative comprehension.
The question asked whether you should teach scientific evidence both for and against, or only for. Naturally most people will want the "fair and balanced" view of teaching both for and against
Exactly. The questions were framed from a push pollster/lawyer mindset.
The average student will never be a surveyor, so why study geometry? The average student will never be an historian, so why teach history? I could go on with this list, but you get the picture. People are taught these things so they will know something of the world in which they will live, and so they will not be complete ignoramuses. For this reason, they are taught biology.
You mean, they have things like 6000 year old universes, talking serpents, women created from men's ribs, and boats that carrry every single living thing and many extinct ones?
If that's the world you live in, guy, well, my compliments to your supplier.
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.