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."

[Elsie]

The unforgiveable sin is NOT anti-christness.....

[Thatcherite]

Don't worry. I'm sure I've committed it too, whatever it is.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Can you tell me difference between these two statements, if made by scientists...

[circa 1990] there is no scientific evidence that points to the existence of the Wollemi pine...

[circa 2006] there is no scientific evidence that points to the intelligent design of life."

Yes, one is now known to be false, and the second is known to be true. Until ID proponents can provide any scientific evidence for ID, any testable claims, the second statement will continue to remain true. Now, can you tell me the difference between these two statements? :

[circa 2006] There is no scientific evidence that points to the intelligent design of life.

[circa 2006] There is no scientific evidence that points to the existence of Santa Claus.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Bless you.

[Elsie]

I've already answered your question.

I just wanted more detail.

Sorry that I've upset you.

[RunningWolf]

BTTT

W

[Elsie]

He's not frothing, just upset with me....

[Elsie]

(Evolution is the new "third rail" in American politics)

(Ambiogenesis is the old "third rail" in Evolution)

[Right Wing Professor]

Proof? You can't handle the proof.

[Elsie]

Scientists, as individuals, are fallible...

SCIENCE, as a whole, is TRUTH on Earth.

[js1138]

Why not?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking why we should use the same kind of inferential reasoning in science that we use in law to find people guilty, imprison and even execute them?

Are you suggesting that this kind of reasoning is valid in law but not in science?

[Elsie]

I predicted that you'd respond that.

LOL!

---

"Evolution isn't predictive" in no way contradicts the fact that predictions can be made using the theory of evolution.

OKKkkkkkaaay.......

[microgood]

Why? Why would a nonfunctional part of the genome be similar?

Similar species may generate what you guys call "nonfunctional" DNA in a similar or same way.

If you are stating that similarity in nonfunctional genes is evidence of common descent between species that share similarities in these nonfunctional genes than differences between them would be evidence against common descent.

In addition, it is possible are not as non-functional as you think and serve some yet undiscovered purpose that all creatures with a certain characteristic share.

[Elsie]

(I'm Pat Henry, I'm the real Pat Henry, All the other Pat Henry's are just imitators...)

To Tell The Truth, you are probably standing now....

[darbymcgill]

Yes, one is now known to be false, and the second is known to be true.

I'll assume by this statement that you are saying the first one is false...

If a scientist made this statement in in 1990, how is it false?

It may be known to be false now, but what if it was made in 1990? would it have been fall then?

[Elsie]

Yes, one is now known to be false, and the second is known claimed to be true.

[js1138]

Just out of curiosity, which is which?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I'll assume by this statement that you are saying the first one is false..."

Since that is what I said, that would be an excellent assumption. :)

" If a scientist made this statement in in 1990, how is it false?"

In 1990 it wasn't false. There was no evidence that the pine existed still. Scientists altered their position when knew information was uncovered.

[Right Wing Professor]

If you are stating that similarity in nonfunctional genes is evidence of common descent between species that share similarities in these nonfunctional genes than differences between them would be evidence against common descent.

Well exactly. If we had a videotape of Monica servicing Bill, that would have been proof they'd had sex. Since we didn't have such a videotape, that proves they didn't have sex.

And I called the man a liar. How can I ever forgive myself?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Yes, one is now known to be false, and the second is known claimed to be true."

The second statement IS true.