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."
Ah, no. I didn't turn to any dictionary or argue any fine points of etymology. Just plain English and dead common usage. But however you want to spin it.
There is no intent in evolution. Organisms do not try to predict what will change in their environment and then change to fit that anticipation.
To other animals, humans are as sudden and catastrophic as a sizable bolide.
A few months ago I read "Wonderful Life" by Gould, which centers around the Burgess shale fauna.
Literally *thousands* of pieces from different sites have been examined in great detail. For some critters they needed to use many different ones to make 3D models.
See, that is your Darwinian logic. I stated no such thing. Your errant mind reading produced that result. I pointed out what I saw, and I saw a problem. Many other people do the same.
Sure. Evolution can't "know" (and doesn't "care") that it may be staking important matters on an ultimately impermanent resource. How could it? It only "knows" that the resource is available here and now. All evolution can ever act on is the present (or then present) creature and environment as they present themselves.
The Burgess shale is localized and remains largely unexplored. It's contents also is simply representative of forms of life locally present at the time they were buried in this sediment. Even to this day we do not expect all forms of life to be equally present in all places. While some critters die and "nature" takes its course by further placing them underground, it generally takes a sudden burial to create a fossil. It is a generally held principle that the fossil record denotes a slow, steady process of superposition. I question that principle and consider it instead to denote a catastrophic occurance such as the earth had never experienced theretofore and will never experience again, namely a global deluge.
But let us take a look at the shale in its present state in the field, without the aid of textbooks to "assist" in sorting the fossils according to pre-conceived notions. What do we see? Is it a neat record showing a clear representation of life from simpler to more complex forms? Darwin was averse to the suggestion that life involved such neat transisitons. He avoided the word "evolution" because it suggested purpose.
At bottom, one can spin of the fossil record any tale he wishes. I hold the biblical texts to be accurate. Others trust themselves.
everything yet to be discovered, "is" to be inferred as not existing?to this....
Yes. everything and anything "yet to be discovered" does not (and cannot) presently exist as "evidence".and then "implied" that they are one in the same, you were just putting my words into "plain English and dead common usage" as you put it? But in reality, if they were in your mind equivalent then why the need to change the wording? One might suspect an attempt to pawn the mutated (redefined) version off as an identical copy of the original.
And your point is?
You can choose almost anything after it has occurred and through the use of faulty application of probability make it look like the occurrence was so unlikely as to be remarkable.
For example, there is a rock in my back yard that looks like an arrowhead yet is simply a rock. What is the probability that that special rock would find itself in that special spot in my back yard?
The area covered by that rock is approx 5cm x 9cm = 45cm2. The land surface area of the earth is approx 1.483x108 kms2. There is approx 1x1010 cm2 in a km2. So the probability that a rock of that size will find that special spot in my back yard rather than any other spot is 1 in 3.295x1016.
Now what is the probability that that specific rock will be the one found in that spot? The volume of the lithosphere has been calculated to be 5.054 x1019 cubic meters. My rock's volume is roughly 5cm x 9cm x 3cm = 135 cm3. That means there is a potential 7407 x 5.054 x1019 or 3.7434978 x 1023 rocks of this size that could have landed on that spot. The probability of that rock being the 'special' rock is 1 in 3.7434978 x 1023.
Now the probability that that special rock will be found in that special place is 1 in 3.295x1016 x 1 in 1.483x1012 = 1 in 4.886485 x10 28.
Now what is the probability that the rock will look like an arrow? The probability that that rock will be red in colour? The probability that it will have a crease along its length? The probability that it will be igneous? Each of these considerations decreases the liklihood even further.
I have no idea how to calculate those probabilities but I believe my point has been made. The likelihood that that very special red coloured, longitudinally creased, arrow shaped, 5cm x 9cm x 3cm, igneous rock would be found in that special spot in my back yard is incredibly small. So small that it probably could not have happened by chance. Yet it did.
(please forgive any errors in my math, I was using the calculator that came with Windows which frequently does not represent large numbers in usable form)
Ten digits means I had a 1 in 1 billion chance of being assigned my exact phone number. Man, I should buy more lottery tickets.
No. You changed the wording by attempting to remove the word "evidence" from the discussion which, afterall, YOU started by asserting that the claim "there is no scientific evidence" is "unqualified" with respect to the possibility that evidence might be found to exist in the future. Or that presently known facts might later be recognized to have evidentiary value.
Apparently you dropped the word "evidence" so you could redeem your originally false complaint via the pointless tautology that things that have not been discovered, but do exist, do exist.
Yeah, things that do exist, do exist, whether they've been discovered or not. Big deal. But they can't possible be "evidence" in an undiscovered state.
Geez. It's not like this is complicated.
Keep in mind this is also the most pro-life group in American society.
Cough cough.
Be careful with your comments.
Scripture says not to let anybody talk down to you due to your youth.
It's also the most pro-gay marriage group in American society. It's kind of a mixed bag, so let's not get too caught up in polishing one's own halo ;)
I heard a Native American elder say once, "If you want to know something ask the young. They know everything."
Fair enough. You are correct that unfortuntely, I am in the minority among my peers on the gay marriage matter.
It's okay - I'm just in the next cohort up, and there's not much difference, except maybe with extra slacking ;)
" [I do]???"
If you don't want ID to be considered science, what is your point then?
"We are somewhat in agreement here... I'm sure you would agree that just because we haven't found any evidence, doesn't mean there is none."
And just because we have not found evidence for Santa Claus, doesn't mean there isn't any. Teach the controversy!
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.