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]

but in my relationship with the Creator.

We agree. This is the ONLY thing that matters.

When them Books are opened, I don't think we'll be asked which side of the debate we were on.

---

My main problem with E is that can ruin that relationship AKA Darwin.

[atlaw]

For me, I WAS a believer in E, before I got asked a guestion I could not answer.

Well heck, Elsie. You can't make a tantalizing comment like that and not tell us what the question was.

[Elsie]

The farther into the future we attempt to look the less likely any prediction we make will be accurate.

How about just to TOMORROW?

[Elsie]

 

My main problem with E is that can ruin that relationship AKA Darwin.

 

thus....

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

---

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )

---

NIV Proverbs 4:13
   Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:6
   But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:14
   We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

 

NIV Hebrews 6:11
   We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.

 

 

NIV Hebrews 12:3
   Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

 

NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13
 11.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
 12.  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 13.  if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

 

NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21
 20.  If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
 21.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

 

 

 

NIV 2 John 1:8
  Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

 

NIV Jude 1:21
   Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

 

NIV Revelation 2:25
   Only hold on to what you have until I come.

 

NIV Revelation 3:11
   I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

[Elsie]

Well heck, Elsie. You can't make a tantalizing comment like that and not tell us what the question was.

Sure I can!!

I've done it before!

---

(Say purty please... ;^)

[b_sharp]

My questions to you are:

1) Why do you require an absolute scientific truth?

2) What specific field of science gives you that?

[balrog666]

Don't confuse the ideal and the adherants. Most of us were REAL assholes before we became believers!

Judging a "moral" cause by the moral behavior of its adherents is always a good idea.

And what do you mean were?

[b_sharp]

"How about just to TOMORROW?

How does one try to predict what will happen to a population tomorrow? We can predict the the majority of organisms born tomorrow will not be exact copies of their parent (sexually reproducing organisms). We can predict that any organism born tomorrow will have a high probability of multiple new mutations in its DNA. Because mutations are pseudo-random we can not tell which particular mutation is likely to occur.

[darbymcgill]

1) Why do you require an absolute scientific truth?

I don't... we've miscommunicated if you have that impression... Either I sent the wrong message or you've received what I sent differently than I anticipated...

2) What specific field of science gives you that?

I, not being an "absolute scientific truth" seeker, would have to say, none.

My foray into this discussion concerned when it is appropriate for scientists to make "absolute truth" claims. Especially after I had been taught a lesson that "few scientists" would never make such "absolute truth" claims....

[Hill of Tara]

"Because we are still learning a whole lot about how digestion works. It is not even close to being a completed science. It's all theory (theory not being a bad thing or just *mere speculation*). Theory is the endpoint of a scientific hypothesis, not *fact*.

Evolution is about as well understood as digestion is."

I would say that the way digestive system and how it functions, while we may not know EVERYTHING baout it, we pretty much understand the basics of how it works. On the other hand, we dont know if evolution actually happened, though science tells us it did. But we do know that people digest food.

[Hill of Tara]

"Who's money is it?

Who's money pays for the teaching?"

It is the people's money, so they should have a lot of say over what is taught, as opposed to some beaurocrat in an office somewhere.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Oh, but you are mistaken, statement #1 was as false in 1990 as it is today."

No it wasn't. In 1990 there was no scientific evidence that the Wollemi pine was still extant. If and until evidence is uncovered by people, it is unwarranted to assume that said evidence exists.

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.

Try not to ignore the above question this time. :)

[darbymcgill]

oops.... never = ever

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I would say that the way digestive system and how it functions, while we may not know EVERYTHING baout it, we pretty much understand the basics of how it works."

In a lot of ways maybe, but there is still a lot we don't know. That is why how digestion works is a theory. And since we will never know EVERYTHING about it, it will always be a theory.

"On the other hand, we dont know if evolution actually happened, though science tells us it did. But we do know that people digest food."

Not only do we know evolution happened, we can observe it happening today. We know evolution happened, and we have a pretty good idea how it happened too.

[Barney Gumble]

While the vast majority of historians agree that the Holocaust did in fact occur, a small number of historians dispute the notion, and are ready to present a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that the event was actually a hoax

Well people think that the moon landing was a hoax or that 9/11 was done by the Jews. I'm wasn't talking about conspiracy theories as being alternative theories to teach, but since much of the population believes one, the other or both, it's not good to leave out a belief that is held by 1/2 of the population.

[jennyp]

Thanx for the book recommendations!

[darbymcgill]

No it wasn't. In 1990 there was no scientific evidence that the Wollemi pine was still extant.

Well maybe I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that a new Wollemi pine mutated or spontaneously generated itself somewhere in remote Australia?

Can I also assume that your response to the age old question:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it really make a sound?

would be.... NO...

And no I'm not avoiding your question... I'll allow myself to be diverted in a second...

[tallhappy]

You're welcome. They are all in print in paperback.

[Thatcherite]

I'm sure I've seen polls that indicate that 60% of the American public believes that the Federal Government is suppressing evidence that aliens are visiting the Earth. We musn't alienate that section of the public either.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Well maybe I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that a new Wollemi pine mutated or spontaneously generated itself somewhere in remote Australia?"

No, I am saying that in 1990 there was no scientific evidence that the Wollemi pine was still extant. Do you think that it would have been correct for scientists to have said in 1990 that the pine WAS still around even when there was no evidence available to support that claim? Scientists make claims based on available evidence, not on all possible future evidence that may or may not exist. You are asking science to bend the rules for ID and sneak it in before it can make any testable claims. That is Behe's position too, which is why he said that science would need to be redefined to allow ID.