Posted on 06/29/2005 6:58:21 AM PDT by Asphalt
A majority of Kansans polled say they want public schools to either allow evolution to be criticized or teach other theories alongside it in science classes.
And more than one-third of the respondents say the Bible's story of creation is the best explanation for the origin of life.
Those findings are part of a poll about evolution conducted June 14-16 for The Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star.
The results offer encouragement to proponents of the state's proposed new science standards, which are critical of how evolution is taught.
But evolution proponents see the results as proof that the average Kansan doesn't know much about science.
Some groups who criticize the state board's conservative majority for its recent hearings on evolution have given up on this year's standards review because to them the changes in the standards seem inevitable. And they are already planning for the 2006 elections, when five board members will be up for re-election.
The latest draft of the proposed science standards includes several criticisms of evolution suggested by intelligent design proponents during hearings in May.
The State Board of Education reviewed those proposed new standards this month, but it won't vote on them until August at the soonest because they are being reviewed by another committee.
The statewide poll of 625 registered voters, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Fifty-five percent of the respondents said they want schools to teach more than the evidence supporting evolution. Thirty-one percent of the people surveyed said they want other theories taught and 24 percent said they want criticisms of evolution taught.
Katie Wilson, 31, is among those who want public schools to teach other theories. The Haysville mom has five children, ages 5 to 13, attending public schools.
"I think that Christianity and the way it is taught in the Bible should be taught because I think that's the only true way it could have happened," she said.
If public schools don't change their teaching, Wilson said, she thinks the evolution lessons should be optional.
"I understand they want to teach evolution, but I think it should be up to each parent to decide whether they want their kids in," she said.
Duane Mikesell of Derby is part of the 39 percent of respondents who said biblical creation is the best explanation for life. But the computer programmer doesn't want public schools to teach the Bible.
"Evolution should be taught in the schools, and religion should be taught in the church," he said.
But Mikesell said he thinks the state board's proposal to include more criticisms of evolution is a good idea.
Joe Keating of Hutchinson said he believes in biblical creation and evolution, and he doesn't see a conflict between the two. Keating, 67, recently retired from a career of building grain mills.
He said criticisms of evolution should be taught, but he isn't sure the debate has been useful.
"In my opinion, it's a waste of time and money, and both sides are a little wrong," he said.
Tressie Wellesley, 69, of Wichita, said she believes God used evolution to create life on Earth. But, like 25 percent of the respondents, she said she thinks schools should teach only evolution.
"I think any time we bring religion into the public school system, we're in trouble," she said. "If you want to teach creation, teach it in the home and in church."
Different interpretations
State board chairman Steve Abrams of Arkansas City said the poll numbers reinforce what he has been saying all along: Both scientists and the public disagree about evolution.
"We are trying to be responsive to that difference of opinion and still stay within the guidelines of good science," he said.
That difference of opinion also shows up in Abrams' e-mail inbox. He said he's been receiving 80-120 e-mails a day from both fans and critics of the proposed new science standards over the past two or three months.
Abrams said he hopes the state board's discussions will prompt people to learn more about evolution and the science standards.
"The more it's discussed in public forums and the marketplace of ideas, I think the better it is," he said.
The Kansas poll results seem similar to other polls about evolution done in other states and nationwide, said Abrams, who has led the effort to revise science standards.
At least 70 percent of the respondents in polls conducted over the past five years in Ohio, New Mexico and Minnesota and nationwide opposed the idea of teaching "only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it."
Most of those polls were conducted at times when science standards were being debated in those states, and the polls were paid for by evolution critics. One was done by the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper.
John Calvert, the retired lawyer who runs the Intelligent Design Network from Lake Quivira, said the Kansas poll seems to validate the proposed changes to science standards.
Carol Rupe of Wichita, one of four moderates on the state board, was surprised by the extent of support for teaching other theories.
"Wow," Rupe uttered quietly when she heard the poll numbers.
But what's popular doesn't determine what good science is, she said.
"We don't change science because of the will of the people," she said. "We change science because scientists make new discoveries."
Rupe and Harry McDonald, president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for Science group, both said the poll seemed to show that most people don't understand science.
"The average person doesn't have a strong grounding in what evolution is," McDonald said.
He said several groups are already looking for ways to oust conservative board members next year, when four of the six conservatives will be on the ballot.
John Martellaro, board president for Kansas Families United for Public Education, said his group is ready to offer financial and volunteer help to state board candidates who challenge the conservatives.
Martellaro said he hopes moderates can regain control of the board next year, as they did in 2000 after the conservatives de-emphasized evolution in the science standards.
Wichita school board president Lynn Rogers said he was a little surprised by the poll results, but he doesn't think the changes in science standards the state board is considering will affect much in schools.
Evolution is a small piece of the science curriculum, he said.
"We spend so little time on it in biology class that I don't see it as a big issue," he said.
The one absolute in evolution is that is shall not be questioned.
Sorry, dudes, but science is not a democratic process, "intelligent design" is NOT science, and thus cannot be taught as such.
2/3 of Americans think the capital of Canada is Toronto. Maybe our schools should teach that.
It IS, however, an idea, and since when was science about EXCLUDING ideas?
Schools should allow other subjects to debate alterate views as well. In math class, for example, the alterate view that 1 + 1 = 3 should be taught.
"It IS, however, an idea, and since when was science about EXCLUDING ideas?"
I have an idea that the sky is actually green. Doesn't mean that it should be taught as science, no matter how many people I convince.
"Intelligent Design" is not scientific, and has no place in science class.
Check that - it should be introduced and then thoroughly debunked. Include it only to teach the kids why it's not "science" at all.
2/3 of Americans think the capital of Canada is Toronto. Maybe our schools should teach that.
Acually 2/3 of graduating HS students do not know the capital of their own state.
I vote for #1 ... teach the problems with and the evidence against the theory of evolution. Most parents who are creationists are also church-goers ... so their kids will be getting the Biblical view at home and church.
But good science dictates that the evidence against a theory be presented as well ... and this is where the evolutionists will have a cow.
I think this may be a foolish course of action. My kids, for example, have understood the general idea of punctuated equilibrium for years. As a Christian parent I consider it a responsibility to understand the theory. In that respect I am aware of two things: 1) I do not understand nearly as much as I would prefer, and 2) many many Christians do not even possess a good working knowledge of the "basics", and that is a shame. I would worry about my level of faith if I avoided such material because I thought it could be shaken by such knowledge.
"We spend so little time on it in biology class that I don't see it as a big issue," he said.
Okay, but it is taught as fact, which it is not. And why not spend a "little time" on creation? When I was first taught about evolution (tenth grade biology), my first thought was something akin to "How stupid of an idea is that?"
The Theory of Gravity is also an idea. My idea is that omnipresent, invisible fairies are responsible for pushing things down. Not easily disproved, so it is a viable alternative "idea".
I am sure a majority would vote to repeal the Law of Gravity. It is doubtful, however, that such a vote will change how the Universe actually works. Even if it gives a "feel-good" to the voters.
A "Kansas is as flat as they believe the Earth to be" ping.
Fine idea. Teach it in philosophy class, comparative religions, or someplace like that.
And science IS about excluding ideas not supported (or supportable) by hard data.
For a while now, I guess. There was a column in the WSJ (not the editorial pages -- one of the "special" weekly things) that argued against teaching even the difficulties in the theory of evolution because then they'd have to teach the remaining difficulties in all the rest of science. Which I guess would create doubt or something that "science" isn't omniscient and beyond debate. Which sounds to me like a good thing.
Hey, Asphalt...you're really active today!
PH, this is for your list!
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.