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."
LOL,
so we did'nt all come from one spark of life that eventually mutated to produce all of this variety?
a simple yes or no?
Yeah, you betcha we did.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Yeah sure! Your too funny!!
Your opinion is correct... right up until you look at the evidence. No faith is required at all to accept the abundant evidence in numerous cross-correlating scientific fields that evolution. Actually that isn't quite right; you need faith in the value of physical evidence and the power of reason.
What evidence, other than the bible, supports the bibical account of creation "after their own kind"? What is a "kind" anyway? What hypothetical observation would disprove the idea that species were created "after their own kind"?
...that supports evolution...
The evolutionists have no more evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all than anyone who would say it was delivered and/or engineered by extraterrestrials...
The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials...
Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption the Earth is the staring point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it - - which may be even occurring unobserved in our midst!
Not at all scientific of them... a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
[Life as we know it, of which all has DNA; exists only because H2O is a polar molecule.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sir Francis Dashwood to manwiththehands
On News/Activism ^ 03/08/2006 2:24:11 AM PST · 440 of 707 ^
How do you feel about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space?
They already do... the Big Bang theory... another immaculate conception...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What brought THIS on??
Then WHERE on FR is it??
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
What brought THIS on??
No coffee yet!!
Evolution is TRUE!!!
John 3:3-7
3. In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. "
4. "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5. Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.'
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
"What was the latest greatest evolutionary change?"
Oh who knows WKB...a species can be dated from a few million to a few billions at the drop of a hat with no questions asked. They have an answer for all of it...lol
Wouldn't you think some of them would take a look around this old world & use some common sense?
use some common sense?
You're kidding right?
"No matter what happens, it always *supports* evolution. If they evolve, it does; if they don't evolve, it does. How convenient. There's never any contradiction because EVERYTHING supports evolution. Heads I win, tails you lose."
LOL....metmon hit it out of the ballpark with that! She's 100% correct.
Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the staring point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority’ (as they term the argument in logic).
Actually, not at all. Most evolutionists assume that life on earth originated on earth, but a few think that life originated elsewhere and the earth was seeded with primitive organisms that originated somewhere else. They will agree that it's quite possible and even likely that life has also orginated on other planets, perhaps on many of them. I doubt any of them would be silly enough to say that the earth is the center of the universe. And how can you state that the assumption that earth life originated here is fallacious? That would require knowledge on your part that life on earth originated elsewhere. You don't have this knowledge, so you are making an assumption yourself.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the second part of this statement. Are you saying that scientists think that the earth is unaffected by anything outside its atmosphere? Because that is certainly a fallacious statement. I suppose you are saying that they assume the earth is not affected by anything outside the universe. I find it odd that you think that this is an unscientific assumption. . . We are unable to probe anything outside the universe, and science deals only with what can be examined. Influences outside the universe fall under the realm of philosophy, certainly not science.
I hope you're not suggesting that scientists should entertain any prospect, no matter how bizarre. For instance, maybe all celestial bodies rest on the backs of humongous, invisible, undetectable turtles? Would it be unscientific to discount this as a scientifically verifiable possibility based on the absence (and indeed unattainability) of evidence?
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.