Zogby poll on evolution is released

UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

[Greg o the Navy]

SEATTLE, March 7 (UPI) -- A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.

[FierceDraka]

OK, just for argument's sake, which creation story will be taught? Every culture on Earth has its own creation story, you know.

Shall we use the Abrahamic version from Genesis? Or the ancient Egyptian tale of Atum the sun god?

How about Unkulunkulu, the Zulu creator who came from the reeds?

Perhaps the tale of Kamui, who made this world as an ocean sitting on the backbone of a giant trout?

Then there's the story of Pan Gu, whos assorted body parts became all the things in the world when he died.

I kind of lean toward the Aztec one, because I think a celestial lady wearing a skirt made out of live snakes is downright cool, but that's just me.

If you want your kids to learn the creation story of Genesis, go right ahead and teach it to them. But please do not presume the right to impose your beliefs on me and mine by the police powers of the State.

[Right Wing Professor]

The wording of the poll questions was about as weaselly as any you'll ever see. Hardly surprising; the poll was commissioned by the Discovery Institute. All it demonstrates is what anyone with the slightest political sophistication knows - that if you let me write the questions, I can get he poll to say anything you want.

[buckeyenation]

If I understand the issue correctly, "intelligent design" simply means noting that it is a widely held belief that the complexities of the world can only be explained by the presence of a greater being.

It doesn't (or at least it shouldn't) mean the teaching of a specific "creation story."

[M203M4]

There is a solution that deals with this problem in a more complete way. Private schooling - with the transition from public to private schooling helped along via an expanded voucher system.

Right now it is evolution - what is next? Let them replace science with babble all they want. This way they only harm their own education.

[Recovering_Democrat]

A new wave of science is upon us.

Science by majority polling !

I must agree with your sarcasm; deciding to teach or believe something because most people believe in it isn't the way to go. Instead, presenting opposing opinions on the subject and letting the chips fall where they may is a better idea.

[opinionator]

I want volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis included in intelligent design. God needs a way to talk to us, so he created natural disasters to do it.

[FierceDraka]

It doesn't (or at least it shouldn't) mean the teaching of a specific "creation story."

Then why does it seem to me that the entire thing is being pushed the hardest by hardline evangelical Christians?

If they're not trying to shove their brand of religion down everyone's throats through the police powers of the state, then what exactly are they doing?

[raj bhatia]

As I said, there would be no objections to teach this in a theology class. If conservatives pass off the ID as science, we would be deservedly mocked by liberals and it would resonate with any thinking person.

There is no need to commit suicide and hand over the high ground in Science to the left.

[Dimensio]

Curious. What is the "Intelligent Design theory"? What observations does it explain? What predictions does it make? What observations does it support moreso than any other possible explanation? What hypothetical observation would falsify the theory?

[elfman2]

Evolution is a theory incompletely supported by much evidence, therefore consistent with science. Creationism is a hypothesis with absolutely no objective evidence that I’m aware of other than highly contentious claims that evolution is impossible. I’m not aware of any other hypothesis without evidence thought along side major theories in science classes.

Additionally, creationism’s premise is essentially the magic of God, no disrespect intended, and is therefore as incompatible with logic of science as with the logic of math.

Nevertheless, I absolutely support including Creationism in Social Studies classes.

[festus]

In the question of the origin of life there are only two possibilities. Either it spontaneously generated or its been here eternally.

Neither strikes me as being rational or scientific. But those who claim to be scientific invariably insist that spontaneous generation is rational and scientific. And the get really argumentative if you suggest otherwise. I give them another 10 years before they start burning folks at the stake who disagree with them on charges of heresy.

[TASMANIANRED]

I got push polled the other night.

Must have not answered the first 2 questions right.

Machine paused, skipped question 3 all together and went to 4 and 5.

When they need to skew the results they fudge the questions.

[Rokke]

"Nevertheless, I absolutely support including Creationism in Social Studies classes."

What a unique approach. Imagine...schools teaching more than one theory concerning a complex subject. Next thing you know they'll be teaching kids to consider all matters objectively. Will the world survive?

[Dimensio]

What a unique approach. Imagine...schools teaching more than one theory concerning a complex subject.

In a scientific context, there is no alternative explanation for species diversity to evolution.

[Rokke]

"In a scientific context, there is no alternative explanation for species diversity to evolution."

Theories are theories whether an alternative theory exists or not.

[Rokke]

"In a scientific context, there is no alternative explanation for species diversity to evolution."

Theories are theories whether an alternative theory exists or not.

[Dimensio]

Theories are theories whether an alternative theory exists or not.

I do not understand what point you are attempting to make with this statement.

[Rokke]

"Scientific context" is not relevant to this poll. Teaching alternative theories in public schools is. In this poll (for what it's worth) the results indicate a strong majority of Americans believe more than one theory should be taught in school. Whether either theory is more "scientific" does not change the fact that both consist of speculation and conjecture, and it certainly doesn't imply that either exists without an alternative.

[Quick1]

Tell me how intelligent design can be falsified, and then I will accept it as science. Tell me how we can use it to predict results of experiments, and I will accept it as science.

Until that day comes, I will not accept Intelligent Design as science, and as such, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Philosophy classroom would be ok, but not a science classroom. Kids are barely learning the scientific method as it is.

[Dimensio]

"Scientific context" is not relevant to this poll. Teaching alternative theories in public schools is.

Actually, context is important. Without proper context, there is the risk that two different definitions of the same word -- theory -- will be equivocated.

In this poll (for what it's worth) the results indicate a strong majority of Americans believe more than one theory should be taught in school.

The problem, however, is that with respect to diversity of species, there is only one explanation that acutally rises to the level of "theory". A second "theory" cannot simply be willed into existence by majority vote.

Whether either theory is more "scientific" does not change the fact that both consist of speculation and conjecture,

There is only one theory in question, and the fact that it has risen to the level of "theory" demonstrates that it is far more than mere speculation and conjecture.

Whether either theory is more "scientific" does not change the fact that both consist of speculation and conjecture, and it certainly doesn't imply that either exists without an alternative.

It is not an issue of one theory being considered "more" scientific than another. The issue is that there is only one theory that is scientific at all.