Ohio Poll: 3 to 1 Margin Supports Teaching Evolution Controversy

DISCOVERY INSITITUTE NEWS ^ | 02/13/2006

[SirLinksalot]

Discovery Institute News 1511 3rd Ave Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101 - (206) 292-0401 x107

Ohio 2006 Poll Results Executive Summary

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
February 13, 2006

---

This was a telephone survey of Ohio likely voters conducted by Zogby International 2/2/06 thru 2/3/06. The target sample is [601] interviews. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.

---

Click here to see the complete poll results.

---

Which of the following two statements come closest to your own opinion?
A) Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
B) Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
C) Neither/Not Sure

In 2006 in Ohio:
A = 19%
B = 68.8%
C = 12%

In 2002 in Ohio:
A = 19%
B = 65%
C = 16


Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: “When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.”
1. Strongly agree 2. Somewhat agree 3. Somewhat disagree 4. Strongly disagree 5. Not sure

In 2006 in Ohio:
1. Strongly agree 56.4%
2. Somewhat agree 19.3% Agree 75.7%
3. Somewhat disagree 5.0%
4. Strongly disagree 13.0% Disagree 18%
5. Not sure 5.9%

In 2002 in Ohio:
Strongly agree 55%
Somewhat agree 23% Agree 78%
Somewhat disagree 3.0%
Strongly disagree 10% Disagree 13%
Not sure 9.0%


Some other interesting findings:

Of those that agreed: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

• 78.6% of Republicans agreed, 58.6% of Democrats agreed, and 67% of Independents agreed.
  
• 70% of men agreed, and 67.8% of women.
  
• 51% had some high school, 69% graduated high school, 67.8% had some college, 70% had college degrees.

Of those that agreed: When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.

• 84.3% of Republicans agreed, 66.2% of Democrats and 75.2% of Independents agreed.
  
• 73.1 of men agreed, and 78.1% of women.
  
• 67.2% had some high school, 81% graduated high school, 82.5% had some college, 69.6% had college degrees.

---

Click here to see the complete poll results.

---

---

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at:
http://www.discovery.org.

[fizziwig]

I thought Richard Dawkins proved there was no God? The almighty highmaster of truth has spoken....why are we even continuing on with this controversy? SARCASM/

[mlc9852]

I thought Eugenie Scott proved there was no God and that's why the National Center for Science Education is dedicated to making sure God is never mentioned in public schools.

[MrTed]

I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. Don't we in Ohio know we must bow at the alter of Evolution, and bow to no other.

[trebb]

It has nothing to do with what parents want their kids to learn (and it's all learning), it has everything to do with what atheists and pure Darwinists (not trying to make a direct correlation between the two, but I'd bet there is a pretty broad overlap) want to teach the kids.

[cogitator]

Which of the following two statements come closest to your own opinion?
A) Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
B) Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
C) Neither/Not Sure

As long as biology teachers hew strictly to "scientific" evidence, and do not entertain non-scientific viewpoints, musings, philosophies, or diatribes (B) is fine.

Meaning: (A) and (B) are the same thing when a purely scientific presentation is concerned. The question could have been more accurately worded in terms of the intent of DI as:

Which of the following two statements come closest to your own opinion?
A) Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
B) Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the counter-propaganda promoted to cast doubt on the theory of evolution due to Christian religious traditions.
C) Neither/Not Sure

I think (B) would get less support if it was more accurately worded.

[orionblamblam]

I agree, teach the controversy. In politics, philosophy or current events classes, teach how proponents of ID twist the facts, ignore evidence and outright lie and perjure themselves in order to wedge creationism in the door.

[PreciousLiberty]

"Don't we in Ohio know we must bow at the alter[sic] of Evolution, and bow to no other."

If you're bowing to altars in science class in Ohio, that would explain some things... ;-)

I completely agree with the answer that said "Scientific evidence that conflicts with evolution should also be presented". The fact is, though, that there is very little such evidence. It is also true that future refinements of evolutionary theory will likely account for any discrepancies.

[mancogasuki]

I agree, teach the controversy. In politics, philosophy or current events classes, teach how proponents of ID twist the facts, ignore evidence and outright lie and perjure themselves in order to wedge creationism in the door.

I'll second that.

[Coyoteman]

B) Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

There is no credible scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.

There are a lot of people who, for religious reasons, refuse to accept evolution and, from this refusal, contort science (what I call "pretzel science") in a vain effort to discredit evolution. This contortion of science is not science.

Another perfect example of this "pretzel science" is flood geology.

[orionblamblam]

> Would you be including this as part of your "counter-propaganda promoted...to Christian religious traditions"?!

What... the discovery that 500,000 years ago there were chimps? That's hardly surprising, and in no way counters evolution since the ancestor of both humans and chimps predated *that* by several million years.

Now, declaring that a 500,000 year old chimp somehow invalidates evolution... that *would* be propaganda, and not very well thought out propaganda. Using a 500,000 year old fossil to prove the world is only 6000 years old... tsk, tsk, tsk....

[cogitator]

Would you be including this as part of your "counter-propaganda promoted...to Christian religious traditions"?!

No, it because it's not scientific evidence against evolution. There's nothing there that contradicts evolutionary theory. Theories of human dispersion and origin might need modification, but that's different.

IMO, the Darwinian dogma of macro-evolution has sufficient falsehood and absurdity to completely unravel on its own.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. (Don't hold your breath.)

[cogitator]

There is no credible scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.

Yes, yes, I know.

[cogitator]

500K years old. Can its age be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Radiocarbon ain't gonna cut it.

The maximum age that 14C can be used for is about 50,000 years. Fossils older than that require other kinds of dating methods.

[orionblamblam]

> I don't believe that fossil is even close to being 500K years old.

Your belief is based on your own testing, I take it?

> Can its age be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

"Proven" in the courtroom sense? Quite probably.

> Radiocarbon ain't gonna cut it.

Which is why they certainyl didn't use that. I'm sure they didn't figure out the fossils age by asking it, either. Probably used some of those *other* methods available, doncha think?


> Darwinian ToE is still inconsistent, chock full of holes, and ultimately untenable.

Based on...

> Nice homepage, BTW </sarc>

Everybody's a critic.

[Right Wing Professor]

I think (B) would get less support if it was more accurately worded.

Exactly.

[Right Wing Professor]

The Creationist Rated Articles Panel (CRAP) hereby awards this creationist article 2 Hams, on the grounds that while it's a nonsensically worded survey, with leading and factually false questions, at least there isn't a large chunk of Casey Luskin's moronic text attached to it.

The Ham rating scale, created in honor of famous creationist Ken Ham , rates creationist articles on how stupid, mendacious, nonsensical, irrational, and just generally bad they are, ranging from one ham - only slightly silly - up to five hams - utterly mind-numbing.