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."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You're half-right. 8~)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Re-stating my point for the 3rd time in the same thread, even I would call spam...."

The only thing I can get from your posts is you think that the fact that evidence for something doesn't yet exist is a good reason to think it will someday. In other words, it's because ID has no scientific evidence yet that we should investigate it that much harder. There are lots of things that have no scientific evidence that are technically possibly true; nonetheless, scientists don't bother themselves with claims that are untestable. Until ID makes testable claims it will be no more relevant to science than astrology, or the Theory of Santa Claus.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So small that it probably could not have happened by chance. Yet it did.

God put the rock in your backyard. And since it's there, the probability of the rock being in your backyard at this point in time was always 100%.

[darbymcgill]

The only thing I can get from your posts is you think that the fact that evidence for something doesn't yet exist is a good reason to think it will someday.

Then your inference would be wrong... I've posted my point to you in #672

If you have a question about something I've posted specifically and not something you wish that I posted, I will be happy to respond. It's all about consistency my friend, I'm just asking the scientists to be consistent....

[Right Wing Professor]

You really don't see the logical difference between the phrases "The Wollemi pine is extinct" and "There is no evidence unicorns exist", do you?

[ahayes]

What?? I thought I was in science, now you're telling me that I'm in crossword puzzle solving? Why didn't someone tell me this before!

[Tard-cat]

Darwinists are like blind men examining an elephant. Just because they are unable to see, they deny the existence of light. Perhaps faith is just a higher order of science waiting to be discovered. Rather than pursue other evidence, Darwinists act parochially because it protects their egos. The Bible says that light came into the world, but that men preferred darkness rather than acknowledge the truth.

[Elsie]

And what do you mean were?

Is that YOUR cold nose?

[Elsie]

Because mutations are pseudo-random...

?

[Elsie]

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

 

[circa 12,006] There are TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS of scientific evidence that points to the existence of Santa Claus!

Just last week, the radioactivity of the NYC tell was low enough that researchers in the Remote Burrowing Mole X650 were able to finally penetrate the lower reachs of the crater (there is still debate whether it is volcanic or meteoric in origin).

Fossilized remains of MANY items that indicate SC did, in fact, exist at some time in the past have now, finally, been brought to light.

Research workers have had to call in the Auto-Gestapo Robo-Rangers to quell what appears to be worshippers of this ancient idol. They have been clogging the entry to the pit with so many people, that the boreing tools have had to wait until a path thru the throng can be cleared!

Calls of "Santa!! Bring me this or that! I've been GOOD!" are echoing and resounding over the digging area, and the Insta-Vision hovercraft are the only way we are able to bring you these Holograms of the scene.

 

One set of scientists have partially restored a large, round disc that appears to have an image of a fat, jolly person who has what appears to be hair or fur - white in color - upon his face!  As you know, facial hair(?) disappeared from the humanoid ape-creature around the year 10 (2023 BCE old style date) when planet warming was fully accomplished.

 

There is some type of graphic symbols (They were known as characters - which were used before we evolved Mental Transmissal senses) that are on the round plate-like object.  Here is a drawing of them:

 

D**n* Co**-**la  

(* means they have not yet decrypted them.)

 

Now back to Al-Katie for a report from our capitol in Tehran: 

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Whilst reading early (very early) on in this thread, I noted a "scientist" posting unequivocally that there is "no scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life". There was no qualifying "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence"... And it just so happened to be the same poster who taught me part 1."

All this because you are arguing silly semantics? As of now, THERE IS no scientific evidence that points to intelligent design. The poster was right, you were wrong. No more than there is scientific evidence that Santa Claus exists. Do you chide people who say that Santa doesn't exist? Do you tell them, "Now, we can't say that. All we can say is that "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence". " No, of course you don't. But because YOU have a personal need for ID to be true, you criticize scientists for making the very logical and very correct statement that there is no scientific evidence for ID. Instead of playing little word games, you should be spending your time marshaling some scientific evidence for your claim.

[Elsie]

Ok, it'll be a bit later today though.....

[Elsie]

Indeed!

(You know you're only 3 away from that BEAST???)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"circa 12,006] There are TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS of scientific evidence that points to the existence of Santa Claus!..."

Ok, this one was funny, AND had something to do with what I have posted on this thread. See, you don't always post crap. :)

[Elsie]

Thank you.

[Elsie]

sizable bolide.

Sounds like a good moniker for a Punk Rock group ;^)

[Elsie]

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.

Thus, we have the mechanism for our population to turn into a bunch of fatties that cannot defend themselves on the field of battle.

[Elsie]

Lottery - pottery....


What's the odds of being born on Christmas and dying on Good Friday?

[Elsie]

Scripture says not to let anybody talk down to you due to your youth.

(If your name is Timothy.... ;^)

[Elsie]

Funny?

It is HILARIOUS!!!


(In MHO)