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."
Follow the links I have given. The paper is free for viewing.
Here is from the paper.
In principle, the following gene conversion scenario could have resulted in the removal of the provirus in the human lineage. First, the preintegration locus underwent a duplication event in the common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla. Second, the provirus formed in one of the two copies of the locus by viral infection of the common ancestor. Next, the Gorilla lineage diverged from the Pan-Homo common ancestor. Then, the Pan and Homo lineages diverged. Afterwards, a recombination event reversed the original locus duplication, restoring a single copy of the locus without the provirus in the Homo lineage. However, the PCR and sequencing assays uniformly failed to detect any evidence for the presence of such a duplicated locus in Gorilla or Pan. Therefore, in addition to the removal of the provirus specifically in the Homo lineage, the scenario also requires recombination events in the Pan and Gorilla lineages to eliminate the provirus-free copy of the locus. Since the Gorilla lineage diverged before the Pan and Homo lineages separated, this means that independent recombination events would have had to occur in both the Pan and Gorilla lineages. While this scenario can never be formally excluded, there is a more parsimonious alternative that involves three fewer recombination events.
In the above they try to fit the outcome to the tree but it is not believable.
The alternative is an allelic segregation model (Figure 2d) in which the provirus formed in the most recent common ancestor of Homo, Pan, and Gorilla just before the three lineages separated. The provirus allele was fixed in the Gorilla lineage. Both alleles were then maintained in the Pan-Homo common ancestor until the individual lineages diverged. The provirus allele was fixed in the Pan lineage, while the preintegration site allele was fixed in the Homo lineage.
That is the fitting of the data to the desired tree. And my tables show how any result of the tests can be fit into the above described tree.
Wishful thinking. And a push poll by a liberal organization, likely trying to suck Republicans into the quick sand of ID.
In 20 years, the ToE will be cast on the ash-heap of history.
And what would your view have been during the Scopes trial when there were significant segments of the population who thought just as you do now.
the more we learn about about the inner working of a simple cell and reproduction, the more obvious it will become that macro-evolution is impossible.
The more we learn about various genomes, the more evidence we have that confirms evolution. In particular, the ERV evidence that we have been discussing on this thread matches the decades old fossil morphological studies, which is a "dissimilar" confirmation of evolution. It's like getting the fingerprints of the murderer on the gun, and a video tape of his act. Both sets of evidence cross-confirm each other.
Doesn't look like many people care what Judge Jones ruled. people realize that the ruling of one judge means nothing in regards to the truth.
Then you've been ignoring the wholesale rush of conservative leaders to distance themselves away from this issue. Name for me one conservative politician who has embraced, or even positively mentioned, ID or creationism since the Dover ruling.
You live in a many dimensioned fantasy land.
You don't understand English well. I did not write, "Your original post about the paper claimed it demolished the idea that ERVs can be used to track evolution." I wrote, "but it grieviously injures the assertion that ERV's are the end-all to assigning absolute relationships." Your demon is working feverishly.
I don't know and I don;t care. My opinion is the ACLU and federal court fiat should stay out of it.
They can teach a giant turtle created the earth for all I care.
What should be taught is reading writing and math. Biology should be inroductory which is describing life in all its forms and the differences and commonalities.
Good biology curricula have been around for decades and the new agenda driven liberal curricula should be avoided at all costs and the basic introductory issues kept. It's worked well and we have had the most advanced science in the world in the US without the obsessive focus on evolution.
As an observer it is so easy to see it is because liberal agendas-ists have begun using biology to push socio-politcal agendas (as they are doing in just about every humanity course) so there has been a backlash.
Generally public school education today is bad and why anyone would think talking about evolution is a major issue and would even be done well by our liberal teachers unions is strange and quite a waste of energy if one is conservative.
Obsessing on this issue as the ACLU and rabid secularists have done is a litmus test for liberalism and one needs not to believe in or be on any one "side" to know this.
That is fitting a single studied ERV site to discover why it operates differently that the other couple of thousand ERV sites.
Off hand, I can think of a few more possible scenarios.
In any event, finding one "issue" with evolution does not give you another hypothesis to explain where species came from. There is an explanation for where species came from that includes this piece of evidence, and all the DNA sequences and fossils we have found to date. What is it?
Make a hypothesis and support it. Until then, there are some legitimate pieces of science that say that there's a small chance I can put my hand through the solid wall beside me. And there's a small chance that evolution is wrong. It's just not likely. Not likely at all.
Touche bump
And yours has failed?
It's nap time.....
Thanks for the ping!
This is not about Democrats, or liberals, or "real conservatives", this is about the individual's right to mold his own's childrens religious beliefs.
I can pick the preacher, but I can't pick the religious beliefs of the public school science teacher, and the State sure as hell can't set religion as a job requirement.
So I want the public school science teacher to enjoy his right to freedom of belief, and I want him/her/undecided to keep their thoughts on the subject of Biblical creation to themselves.
Let the minister/preacher/priest/rabbi/etc of my choice handle that.
Are you suggesting that evolution is a "what if" science?
I asked for some examples.
That an archaelogical hypothesis turned out false isn't the same as saying 99.5% of all scientific ideas are rejected for Biblical solutions.
Which was right? The Bible or Copernicus? Does a rabbit chew its cud? Does the Earth have four corners, or is it a sphere? If the sun stopped moving for a few hours, would our day be longer?
Those are all scientific mistakes in the Bible. It doesn't detract from the Bible's importance or its message. It reflects the beliefs and knowledge of the people who wrote it. That doesn't mean its message is less valuable.
Again, you miss the point. It does not matter whether the tree is reasonable or unreasonable(how do you determine that?), since it is the pre-determined target. It is like answering, "How do I get rich?", with "First, you start out with a million dollars."
OK, so then, what specifically SHOULD be changed about mainstream high school biology curricula when it comes to teaching evolution?head...spinning...must...stop...before...hit...door...I don't know and I don;t care. My opinion is the ACLU and federal court fiat should stay out of it.
They can teach a giant turtle created the earth for all I care.
Look, every time you come here you come here to denounce all us evos on the basis of one perceived error you detect somewhere, on the justification that we are the ones who are destroying the understanding of science because of our awful, awful errors of fact.
But when I try to give you an opportunity to make a positive statement in favor of what you think a good evolution curriculum would be, and you say this???
<sigh> I was hoping for something more constructive, but, well, it was illuminating at least.
I think you might enjoy them.
I think I would too. But alas, I have other fish to fry first.
And, neither of the two popular sides in this current debate are using that method...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
First, the scientific method is a way to arrive at answers.
And, neither of the two popular sides in this current debate are using that method...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Are you so zealous in your cause that you have no humor left?
I am an atheist and believe neither of you. It just so happens that the lack of logic is weighted heavier with the zealotry of evolutionists. I don't find it amusing, either...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
There is a lot more scientific evidence for common ancestors of apes and humans than there is for aliens starting life on earth.
No, there is not. I will give just a few concrete facts...
Humans are the only creatures that have:
...actually journeyed off this planet...devised artificial transportation.
...conquered disease.
...not remained naked.
...artificially enhanced their sensory capabilities.
...become dissatisfied with their own mortality.
I could go on with the facts, but why bother?
You are too busy with your own immaculate conceptions.
While you are bashing the creationists and defending the sucking up of their grant money (and the rest of everyone else's) to actually find answers, you forgot logic - - which is the foundation of the scientific method.
They already do... the Big Bang theory... another immaculate conception...
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.