Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 7, 2006 5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.
About 88 percent of Americans 18-29 years old were in support, along with 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independent voters.
Others who strongly support teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory include African-Americans (69 percent), 35-54 year-olds (70 percent) and Democrats (60 percent).
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn about such evidence," Luskin said.
The Discovery Institute noted Americans also support students learning about evidence for intelligent design alongside evolution in biology class – 77 percent.
Just over half – 51 percent – agree strongly with that. Only 19 percent disagree.
As WorldNetDaily reported, more than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution.
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
Showing some evidence when you accuse federal judges of taking bribery would give your comment more credibility.
I love the huffing and puffing from the aethiests on anything questioning Darwin's "Theory".
Scientists love their rice bowls.
You don't understand -- it's evos answering 'yes' to this poll.
The poster's reworded title is a lie.
The poll says, "A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution."
The creo poster said, "69% want alternate theories allowed in class.
Odd, the poll nowhere mentions alternate theories . . . why would the poster lie about that? Could he be willing to lie to support an agenda?
Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Ahh....the 'logic' of Creationists. This same logic of yours is what guided the Thomas More Law Center to victory at Dover, and your victory at McLean v. Arkansas, and stunning victories going all of the way back to Epperson v. Arkansas. Seems to me if your side continues to use as poor logic as you are using now, you are doomed repeat history over and over and over. Which is fine with me, as I rather like the dominant position that the US enjoys in science, especially the burgeoning Biotech field, which would be gutted if Creationists ever got their way.
"Knew" not "new" (just to prove that one can criticize scientists.)
I love these threads. They always get hundreds of posts, and no one actually convinces anyone of anything.
Since the tactics of the Discovery Institute is virtually identical to tactics of lefty green groups such as Greenpeace, this discussion helps to keep our side honest. The cheap tactics of finding conflict points (Oil drilling in Alaska, evolution in school) and filing lawsuits that result in media attention and result in cash donations to non-profits should be opposed by any honest person.
Odd, the poll nowhere mentions alternate theories . . . why would the poster lie about that? Could he be willing to lie to support an agenda?
Last time I checked, bearing false witness was still a sin. Hmmmmmm.....
Does that mean you don't love the non-atheist ToE proponents?
Take a look at these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). They may help to clear up your misconceptions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Science is the observation of fact. Did you observe Someone who caused everything to happen.
Or did you suppose it.
You are factually incorrect. Many Christians support evolution. And many of them don't like non-science taught as fact. Some of them post here.
By the way, Darwin died a long time ago, and his original work is minuscule compared to the modern day evidence we have supporting evolution. He does make a good "boogy man" though, if you want to stir up a crowd and get donation money, like the Discovery Institute and several authors do.
But those people can still believe in evolution, too. Take Oprah and her followers, for example. They believe in "the Cosmos", and the "Universe" as some kind of force, the Dalai Lama, Kabala, Harry Potter witchcraft, regular witchcraft, some believe in Scientology, some say they are Christians, Jews, and other religions, are feminists,and democrats for the most part,and see no conflict with also believing in evolution.
LOL. Thank you. My fingers are typing faster than I can think today.
It's clear evidence of one side's willingness to lie to support their beliefs.
I don't know how that works -- should someone ping an admin mod when a thread title is a direct lie, saying the opposite of what the article does, like this one?
So? How does that support or not support TOE?
That is no different that saying some Christians believe in a flat earth. Has no bearing on christianity either.
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.