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."

[Senator Bedfellow]

Right now, there should be around 2000-2500 people in the country who fit that description. But I'm the only one with my exact phone number ;)

[js1138]

In other words, it's because ID has no scientific evidence yet that we should investigate it that much harder.

The Democrats once used that logic to prove that Bush I flew to Paris on the Blackbird to arrange the Iranian hostage release. The fact that there was no evidence was proof that we needed an investigation.

I'll stick to my interpretation. Two hundred years of ID without a single proposal for research demonstrates lack of intent to conduct research.

[js1138]

Right now, there should be around 2000-2500 people in the country who fit that description.

Is that calculation based on living people or dead people?

[Senator Bedfellow]

Based on the current living population of the US. Add one for one historical case we know of, if you like ;)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The theory of evolution implies that all organisms arose from descent from a common ancestory.

Yes, the DNA molecule...

For example, how the first organism with DNA came to exist is not part of the theory of evolution.

I love it when the evolutionist zealots contradict themselves...

[b_sharp]

You lucky fellow. You lucky, lucky fellow.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Yes, I often contemplate my telephone and think the same thing...

[darbymcgill]

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?

Of course I see a logical difference between the two... I may not infer the distinction your are implying but I can certainly see one. So what's you're point...??

I've know all along you and your buddies have been giggling at my expense thinking that I was comparing a "real" thing with a "fairy tale". It just goes to show that you intentionally missed the point as usual in your haste to discredit rather than enlighten. It has been as transparent as your "keep it out of science class - put it in philosophy class" ruse...

What I was trying to get from you all along is which one, both, or neither is worded correctly in your consistently inconsistent application of "science speak". A point you have consistently and not surpisingly failed to acknowledge.

[darbymcgill]

All this because you are arguing silly semantics?

Yipppeee.... you finally caught on... congratulations... I can't imagine semantics being "silly" in a scientific kind of way, but if you say so....

All we can say is that "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence".

Take it up with the professor, he's the one who was redefining the definition of extinct, not me. I was just asking him to enforce his own rule on himself as he "taught" me way back when. Remember.... "few scientists would make absolute statements"... I know I remember...

But because YOU have a personal need for ID to be true,

goto [I do]

Since we're in an evidence discussion, I challenge to find some supporting your inference.

[Thatcherite]

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

A thick layer of fat acts as body-armour against light-calibre weapons.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Yipppeee.... you finally caught on... congratulations.."

So it has indeed all been a waste of time.

" I can't imagine semantics being "silly" in a scientific kind of way, but if you say so...."

It is when you are picking so many nits to make... no point.

" Take it up with the professor, he's the one who was redefining the definition of extinct, not me."

Um, no. I was talking about Santa Claus, not the pines. Do you rush to correct those who say that there is no scientific evidence for Santa? Do you tell them "All we can say is that "we have found no evidence" or "we believe there to be no evidence"." ? THAT was the context of that quote, not the pines. You keep refusing to say what your position on Santa is.

"Remember.... "few scientists would make absolute statements"... I know I remember..."

It obviously wasn't absolute, as scientists, unlike creationists/ID'ers, changed their position when new evidence came to light. It's always understood that statements in science are tentative; that they could be altered if new info becomes available. Again, you want to play childish little word games, go right ahead. Don't think we don't see through it.

" Since we're in an evidence discussion, I challenge to find some supporting your inference."

That you have a need for ID to be true? Your entire silly argument is evidence. You wouldn't use it for any other claim that has no evidence, like Santa Claus.

By your logic, a scientist can NEVER say an organism is extinct, because the possibility, however tiny, exists that one individual exists... somewhere. Or, more correctly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative like *no individuals of species X exists today*.

[Right Wing Professor]

What I was trying to get from you all along is which one, both, or neither is worded correctly in your consistently inconsistent application of "science speak".

The only problem is in your amazing obtuseness about fundamental logic, which equates the non-existence of a concrete entity, which exists regardless of discovery (notoriously difficult to prove) with the non-existence of evidence, evidence being a human construct which does not exist qua evidence until discovered.

[b_sharp]

Because mutations are pseudo-random...

"?"

The initial occurrence of a mutation is always random. Whether that mutation is passed to the next generation is not. There are some areas of the genome where mutations are frequently corrected. In this way there are some areas of the genome where mutations are less likely to occur, thus pseudo-random.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The only problem is in your amazing obtuseness about fundamental logic, which equates the non-existence of a concrete entity, which exists regardless of discovery (notoriously difficult to prove) with the non-existence of evidence, evidence being a human construct which does not exist qua evidence until discovered."

I wish I had stated it that succinctly. You said exactly what I was thinking, but didn't say. :)

[Dimensio]

I love it when the evolutionist zealots contradict themselves...

Please explain the apparent contradiction.

[Elsie]

Almost right....

who COLULD fit....

[Elsie]

Living or Dead?

Ah... you've seen the answer a bit closer....

[Elsie]

Man, I should buy more lottery tickets.

AS soon as I get hit by lightning (and survive) then I'm going to buy 6 tickets!

[darbymcgill]

Oh how sweet.... listen... can your hear them...?????

[begin]

shuffle ball, shuffle ball, step, step....
shuffle ball, shuffle ball, ball change, turn...

goto [begin]

My new tag has never been more appropriate...

I'm enjoying myself immensely guys, keep em comin.... and remember.. "it ain't nothin til you call it"

[js1138]

I've know all along you and your buddies have been giggling at my expense thinking that I was comparing a "real" thing with a "fairy tale".

I can't speak for others, but that isn't what I find amusing.

By the way, you still haven't responded to the question of why ID has let 200 years slip by without looking for any evidence.