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."
So does this mean you are about to post something of substance, perhaps your alternative history of life, or your explanation for the fossil record and the DNA evidence?
I realise that. I don't see the problem with the explaning extinction as much as I see problems explaining why any life is left at all. Sheer numbers help, to be sure, but considering how easily a species can be wiped out by climate change or disease, I think that the harder issue to explain is why it wasn't all wiped out. Mutations would have had to occur often enough, at the right time, and in just the right way to allow for adaptation to the conditions that ended up occurring. It seems that there are too many variables that have to work out together at just the right time in the right way.
For anyone with a masochistic streak, I present your posting record. It speaks for itself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=10100
What exactly are the competing ideas about the Holocaust?
Have you ever tried to get rid of pests or weeds?
Nope! this is just as stupid and ugly as any of his other polls.
How to geese know to fly south in winter?
Yes, mass extinctions occur, sometimes during climate changes. But rarely are those changes so swift that the normal year to year ranges of creatures won't gradually shift along with the climate.
You're grasping at straws, attempting to find problems for evolution. In 150 years, don't you think somebodys tried that attack on evolution yet?
"Creationism [or maybe 'originism'] is a more general theory of existence including matters other than life."
No, creationism is not a theory of anything - in the sense of scientific theory. It is a religious precept, taken on faith. It requires a God who is a priori assumed to exist in order to explain the origin of the universe and everything in it.
"Science, self-limited by its own techniques, has to 'live' with things it cannot explain."
Yep, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that science has managed to explain a great deal, including the physical concepts that allow us to communicate with each other electronically via the internet. Science is a process of acquiring understanding piece by piece, and it has served our species well over the last 400 years.
Let science be science, and religion be religion. Let's not try to mix them up - especially not in science classes.
It's not natural for many other species to migrate and there would be no way for them to *know* that heading south would be warmer. It certainly isn't around here, the areas slightly to our north are virtually always 3-5 degrees warmer that the hills and mountains we're in to the south, so there would be no incentive to head in that direction *looking* for warmer climates.
Did you see #460?
UHhhhh..... ...no.
That's a line from: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
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.
I find this a reasonable argument, although I don't really understand your point. The only obsession I see with evolution is by those who oppose teaching it. I doubt if high schools spend more than a few days on evolution. If they do, it's to counter the opposition.
Which leads me to the problem I have with your posts. I am aware of no hypothesis that stands as an alternative to evolution. By hypothesis, I mean an explanatory framework that is consistent with all scientific knowledge and which offers a focus and direction for research.
Sorry, that way of thinking is long past, if it ever existed at all.
Survival of the "fittest" has never meant "powerful." And its not survival that counts, its reproduction.
It would be more accurate to speak of "reproduction by those most suitable for reproduction," but that doesn't flow trippingly from the tongue, now does it?
But it does kind of ruin your argument. Too bad, you had a nice rant going there.
Either you are playing here, or you have reading comprehension problems. The Bible is not intended to be a science text. God had things to convey to us that are of eternal importance, and that is the purpose of the word. The Bible is not wrong about anything, but often people go off on their own tangents and twist the message.
The "four corners" of the earth are not points on the ground; they are points of control occupied by four powerful angels. You can learn more about this in the epistles of Enoch, but it requires considerable reading to gather it all together. Rabbits don't chew a cud, but the animal that the Bible was talking about does; it's an animal much like the wildebeast.
To repeat, there are no errors in the Bible, scientific, or otherwise. Men who read the Bible constantly attempt to make it into something other than what it is. Science is irrelevant in the spiritual context because it is a feeble effort by men to explain things that are beyond human comprehension, and it is also irrelevant because it pertains to the space-time universe, which is set to be destroyed when it has served it's purpose. Why would God worry about something that he intends to discard?
Do you honestly believe that God is incapable of stopping the motion of the planets at will?
so rabbits chew their cud?
Ok, you're playing; I'm sorry that I bothered to reply.
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.