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."

[Stultis]

Great find. Seen similar treatments many times, of course, but that one's nicely clear, accessible, crisp and concise. Of course it will draw the usual chorus of crickets from the antievolution crowd.

[Thatcherite]

Meanwhile, an even bigger "sucker's bet" is trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place

True, but at least any lurkers that might have bought Pascal's Wager were given something to think about.

[microgood]

You see similarity and choose to look no further. Fine. But don't say we have no evidence, because similarity is evidence. It's one thing to decide not to look at it. That's a choice. It's another to claim there is none. That's a falsehood.

We would expect chimps to have similar genomes to humans whether we have a common ancestor or not. That is why it takes something more than similarity to show common ancestry. All life has similarities, and that does not necessarily imply causation.

Is it really for hard for you to see that if we have gigabytes of genetic information - not just one characteristic- for hundreds of different descendants, we can piece together what the genome of the ancestor looked like, even though we don't have any direct information about it?

You could, but you would have no way of verifying the analysis. And the further back you go, the higher the possibility of being in error. At some point the blue eye trait, for example, could disappear completely and you could not really know if/when that happened.

[microgood]

Statistics can be manipulated to *prove* anything, even in science.

All the way from the setup of the analysis through the interpretation of the results.

[js1138]

Statistics can be manipulated to *prove* anything, even in science.

All the way from the setup of the analysis through the interpretation of the results.

Someone should mention this to Dembski.

[Aquinasfan]

"Ha-ha." -Nelson

[microgood]

Except that the physical leftovers are everywhere, you just have trained yourself not to see the evidence for them. Funny how that works, innit? You have willed yourself not to see the evidence, and then you start creating simplified erroneous logical constructions to bolster your worldview. It doesn't work that way. There is no evidence that traces all life back to a singularity. Not in the fossil evidence or the genetic evidence. Even if you accept all the fossil and genetic evidence you cannot get back to a singularity.

As someone with a background in Astrophysics, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't quite appreciate just how long millions or billions of years REALLY is, and what happens in a billion years, or two billion, or three billion years. Educate yourself, PLEASE!

Not sure what this has to do with anything, but I have seen the calc of the age of the Universe and that is unverifiable as well. Having spent some time learning how radiometric dating works and the assumptions behind it, the process does not inspire a high degree of confidence. It may be better suited for relative rather than absolute dating.

[js1138]

From post #247:

So what's your alternative explanation for all this? You say...what? It's because of a necessary similarity between similar organisms? But out of these 76 sites with informative differences, only 18 involve differences that change the amino acid composition of the protein; the rest can have no effect on phenotype. Further, many of those amino acid changes are to similar amino acids that have no real effect on protein function. In fact, ND4 and ND5 do exactly the same thing in all organisms. These nested similarities have nothing to do with function, so similar design is not a credible explanation.

[Stultis]

We would expect chimps to have similar genomes to humans whether we have a common ancestor or not. That is why it takes something more than similarity to show common ancestry. All life has similarities, and that does not necessarily imply causation.

But the SPECIFIC PATTERNS -- and btw, mutiple, nested heirachies of patterns; and patterns that persist even if you look only at synonomous mutations (that don't change the amino acid coded for) or other factors with no functional impact -- DO imply common ancestry, and cannot be explained by any other cause suggested to date (excepting intentional deception by a creating agent).

See the brief exposition in #247 and please answer for us the questions that the author asks of antievolutionists.

[Stultis]

...great minds...

[Thatcherite]

What is being missed here, as usual by those on the anti-evolution side of the argument, is that the specific ways in which the assorted primate genomes would be similar were predicted by scientists using the theory of evolution.

It isn't just any old similarity, but a highly "specified" pattern of similarity that matches the predictions of common descent and pre-existing beliefs about the chain of descent. A Designer could have made things look this way, but only if the Designer wanted to make it look as if common descent is true. What is the difference between an infinitely powerfully being making something look true, and that thing being true?

[Elsie]

50?

Dang! What are they drawing?

Sounds like their drafting background was poor.

[js1138]

I might add that many mapmakers put tiny, deliberate errors in their products to catch copyright violaters. So do software makers.

The inclusion of nonfunctional errors and inclusions is the best known way of tracking lineage.

If this is not a valid way of reasoning, then a lot of prisoners will be going free.

[darbymcgill]

If you think there is evidence contradicting evolution, post it.

If a criminal leaves his fingerprint on the light switch in a room where his crime was committed and the forensic investigators only check for prints on the door knobs and windows, does that mean there is no evidence in the room that the criminal has been there?

[Elsie]

You can note that Pandas, who have very small home ranges (google it) are dying. Their very lack of travel, (and lack of diversity of food) is killing them.

How did they ever EVOLVE theirselves into THIS perdicament?

[Elsie]

God can doe anything without leaving a trace.

And you, otoh, think He can't; right?

[js1138]

If a criminal leaves his fingerprint on the light switch in a room where his crime was committed and the forensic investigators only check for prints on the door knobs and windows, does that mean there is no evidence in the room that the criminal has been there?

In the two hundred years since the ID hypothesis was published by William Paley, no one in the ID movement has been able to come up with a line of research, or any proposals for research that would support the hypothesis.

It's not so much wrong as it is a sterile way of thinking.

[dread78645]

ShirleyTempleDidit placemark

[Stultis]

How did they ever EVOLVE theirselves into THIS perdicament?

By specializing to exclusivity on a particular food source (bamboo) which has subsequently become constricted in it's range.

[Thatcherite]

How did they ever EVOLVE theirselves into THIS perdicament?

Evolution isn't predictive. Well over 99% of all the species that have ever existed have gone extinct.

One could just as well ask, "Why did God create so many species, only to throw most of them away?"