Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)

WorldnetDaily.Com ^ | 03/07/2006

[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."

[Ken H]

"So what exactly is the empirical evidence against evolution?

I'd say how about listening to some folks that have had a NDE (Near Death Experience) they can give you a idea of what happens to us when we die...millions have gotten a glimpse into eternity!

Here is a neat testimony from a Godless atheist...

If an atheist or agnostic has a heavenly near death experience, is that empirical evidence against a literal reading of the Bible?

[Mamzelle]

From keeping her laces (corset strings) too loose. Same thing with "straight-laced"--nothing fancy with the lace pattern. All kinds of corset lore out there. My favorite, though, is the Gibson-era (90's) cartoon where a puzzled husband is helping his wife with her armory and saying, "Funny. I thought I tied it in a bow this morning."

More than you want to know about the history of costume.

[jec41]

I never herd (sic) of lead goats. Are they like a golden calf?

Ha, Ha, saw it right after I posted. Hoped no one would notice, however their is always a observer in the crowd. I do have some lead elephants in my curio cabinet though.

[Mamzelle]

Grandmaster's Evo Dimentia

[Hill of Tara]

"Forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth, but are you saying that were it not for your belief in God you would have no problems accepting the ToE?"

Well there would be no theological obstacle since I wouldnt believe in the Bible, but I would still be skeptical because there are lots of holes in darwin's theory.

[zeeba neighba]

No, unless you really are 57, bald and hairy, and then yes.

[microgood]

So like all good philosopers, you've never applied what you have learned? If you want to play that game, I've taken the same Logic course, tempered by Applied Analysis courses and Applied Math and Physics courses. In all of thoss classes, they warn you not to over simplify your logic. Obviously you never got the memo.

Actually, I also have a degree in Electrical Engineering and took similar courses. Most of that is directly testable, though, unlike speciation. When you make the assumption that all life started with a singularity, something that must have happened millions of years ago, and left no physical trail, you need at least some discipline in your thinking.

Again, not so good on the applied side of things are you? You are starting to sound like a postmodernist when you mislabel things you clearly don't understand as dogma. Sure you aren't a pomo in disguise?

Actually I am very solidly grounded in reality. Its the singularity of life folks that are out in spaceland.

[zeeba neighba]

Ah, I was just kidding ya, besides all my donkeys are unleaded.

[Hill of Tara]

OK, so the students should be taught that the T of E is a theory, and not proven beyond all doubt. What they are teaching now in many school systems is that Darwin's theory is definitely what happened.

[Dimensio]

I recall you posting that list on a previous discussion, and I responded to it then, however you did not provide a response to my rebuttal of your alleged evidences against the theory. In case you missed it, I will repeat my answers here, so that you may consider revising and further supporting your claims before repeating them again.

1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years.

Actually, the time frame is approximately 4.5 billion years. In fact, I do not believe that "zillion" is a number.

How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed?

Most of them have changed. Those that have not simply have not needed to change in order to continue existing through successive generations.

What was wrong with their natural selection?

Nothing is "wrong". Natural selection has no implicit goal or direction. A lack of change over generations in a population of organisms merely indicates that the organisms are well-adapted for successful reproduction within their environment.

2. The idea of evolution just being completely random doesn't wash.

Evolution is not completely random. The mutations that occur to change traits of an organism are random, however the selection process is based upon that organism's ability to successfuly reproduce in their environment. This is not a random event, as their are specific definable factors within each environment and organism.

There has to be an Intelligent Force controlling it.

This is an appeal to incredulity, and a logical fallacy. Merely being unable to comprehend how a process can occur without an "Intelligent Force" controlling the event does not actually necessitate such a force.

3. There was an issue with the propellors on the first organisms (one-celled.) The organism could not exist without the propellor, it could not survive, but the propellor had to have been brought about by natural selection, which couldnt have happened unless the organism was alive, which it couldnt be, if it didnt have the propellor.

I believe that you are referring to the "flagellum". Responses to claims that a flagellum could not have formed without intelligent intervention are found here. I will also note that the man who brought forth the claim of the flagellum requiring intelligent intervention himself accepts common descent as the most likely explanation as to how diverse life emerged. He merely believes that an intelligent agent intervened at various times to adjust the organisms.

4.According to the theory of evolution, in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. How'd that happen, what caused it, what caused that, and how did the chemicals and other elements get there?

The theory of evolution only explains events that occur within systems of reproducing organisms. While the question of the ultimate origin of reproducing organisms is valid, and a field of study for many biologists, it is not one that can be answered within the scope of the theory of evolution, as the mechanics of the theory do not apply. For the same reason, the theory of evolution cannot address the ultimate origins of matter, including the components that make up the first organisms. This is not a weakness of the theory; rather, it is a recognition of the scope of the theory's explanatory power, and an understanding that the theory cannot be used to address questions beyond its scope.

5. Why do we still have appendixes?

Why should we not? Thus far their continued presence has not created a sufficient reproductive disadvantage to pressure their removal from our species.

6. If evolution is caused by mutations, why are most mutations malignant and negative?

Most mutations are actually neutral. Other mutations are either beneficial or harmful depending on environmental conditions. Mutations that are absolutely harmful do not factor into evolution, as the organisms with such mutations will not successfully reproduce. In fact, in many cases such harmful mutations prevent a viable organism from forming in the first place. The existence of harmful mutations does not in any way disprove evolution. The only means by which mutations could disprove evolution is if it can be demonstrated that there are absolutely no mutations that are ever in any way beneficial for an organism.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

I do not understand why you place a laboratory requirement. Not all scientific observation is done within a laboratory. Moreover, evolution has been observed through successive generations of populations, even to the point of speciation.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

There are two problems with this statement. First, Fred Hoyle was not referring to the process of evolution, but rather the process of a single cell forming where none existed before. As I said earlier, this process would not be evolution, but abiogenesis, and would not be addressed by the theory of evolution. The second problem is that as an astronomer, Fred Hoyle did not have the qualifications to construct such a probability argument. In fact, without knowing all of the initial conditions of pre-life earth, it is impossible for even well-researched biologists are unable to know enough variables to formulate a specific probability calculation.

It should also be noted that Fred Hoyle never disputed the theory of evolution. He simply believed that the first life forms from which evolution started were seeded to Earth from space. --There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.
Angler Fish; Chicken Egg
Beaver; Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider; Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle; Woodpecker

Please explain how the above creatures "defy" evolution. If you prefer to keep your response and research less exhaustive, select one or two from the list and explain them.

[ml1954]

Recycling the same old stuff I see.

You posted the same thing Here

And Dimensio responded Here

[Dimensio]

OK, so the students should be taught that the T of E is a theory, and not proven beyond all doubt.

Perhaps students should be taught the nature of science, in which case pointing out that the ToE is "not proven beyond all doubt" would be unnecessary, as students would understand that nothing in science is ever "proven beyond all doubt".

[ml1954]

36 seconds behind you.

[microgood]

A more accurate statement would be that in addition to extensive fossil evidence, markers in analagously identical positions of non-coding regions of the DNA of both humans and chimpanzees show identical viral insertions, providing strong evidence for descent from common ancestry of the two species. This is more than just common characteristics in the DNA, this is common characteristics in DNA segments where a difference would have no effect on physical characteristics of the organism.

Thanks for the elaboration. I was wondering what your thoughts are on post #202, where a different viral insertion seems to indicate we do not have common ancestry.

[phantomworker]

Interesting...

[RightWinger]

I didn't realize 69% of Americans could actually think . . .
I guess we are evolving after all. {;o)~

[AndrewC]

In the end, any competitive theory must do more than point out anomalies. It must explain and it must provide direction for research.

They explain, but they explain through a prism with no proof. The only evidence given was that gorillas and chimps had something that humans did not have. They then force fit the solution to achieve an end. As I understand their solution, Hugorimp had alleles, one with virus. Gorilla left hugorimp and fixed the allele with the virus in its genome. Huimp then spawned human and chimp, with humans losing the virus allele and chimp keeping the virus, but losing the one kept by human. Quite a just so story.

[Amelia]

OK, so the students should be taught that the T of E is a theory, and not proven beyond all doubt.

Could you please give your definition of "theory"?

You might want to then compare it with the definition as used by scientists.

[Amelia]

Thank you. I was just speechless.

[Coyoteman]

OK, so the students should be taught that the T of E is a theory, and not proven beyond all doubt. What they are teaching now in many school systems is that Darwin's theory is definitely what happened.

If you look at the definition I posted for "theory" you will note that it begins with:

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.

In science, this means that the theory has been tested against the known facts, and that it has passed those tests. It also implies that the theory has produced predictions, and that those predictions have been verified. This is the explanation that currently best explains the data.

This does not mean the theory is correct, or that is is proved or that it is fact, but that it has passed the tests I mentioned. This follows the scientific method.

What the proponents of ID are asking scientists to do is accept unverified beliefs as being equivalent to well-substantiated scientific theory. In a science class that is not an acceptable alternative. There is no "teach the controversy" or "teach both theories" as ID has not yet been able to establish itself as a part of science, nor does it follow the methods of science.

Would you care to guess the percentage of their annual budget that the Discovery Institute spends on public relations vs. actually doing science?