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.

[RobbyS]

Unless there are questions about evolutionary theoy on standardized tests, such as AP biology, there is not much point in teaching it to 10th graders.

[Rokke]

Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. This poll asked whether or not Americans thought both theories should be taught in public schools. 69% said yes. You can try to complicate the matter with implied definitions and special status reserved only for what you consider "scientific" theories, but that requires you to read more into this poll than its data supports. Relax. If the theory of evolution is as scientifically sound as you believe it is, than it will easily overwhelm all alternative theories presented to public school students.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory.

If Intelligent Design is a theory, then I must ask what it predicts, what observations support it and what hypothetical observations would prove it false.

You can try to complicate the matter with implied definitions and special status reserved only for what you consider "scientific" theories, but that requires you to read more into this poll than its data supports.

The problem is that not reading in the context of a scientific theory creates a false equivocation.

Relax. If the theory of evolution is as scientifically sound as you believe it is, than it will easily overwhelm all alternative theories presented to public school students.

The problem is that presenting non-scientific theories as equal to scientific theories requires re-defining science in such a way as to make any rational inquiry impossible.

[Rokke]

"If Intelligent Design is a theory, then I must ask what it predicts, what observations support it and what hypothetical observations would prove it false."

How you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll. The definition of "theory" is far broader than the limits you impose here.

"The problem is that not reading in the context of a scientific theory creates a false equivocation."

Only if you choose to believe that one theory is superior to the other. The fact remains, both theories share the common characteristics of being unproven and relying on speculation to be believed.

"The problem is that presenting non-scientific theories as equal to scientific theories requires re-defining science in such a way as to make any rational inquiry impossible."

No. It doesn't.

[Dimensio]

How you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll.

I am not the one who has defined the word theory.

The definition of "theory" is far broader than the limits you impose here.

The word theory has multiple definitions. A specific definition is used when speaking of the "Theory of evolution". This definition does not apply to "Intelligent Design". As such, speaking of "both theories" when speaking of evolution and intelligent design involves a false equivocation.

Only if you choose to believe that one theory is superior to the other.

It is not a question of superiority. The matter is over the applicability of definitions.

The fact remains, both theories share the common characteristics of being unproven and relying on speculation to be believed.

All scientific theories are "unproven". This does not mean that all unproven speculation rises to the level of "theory".

[RunningWolf]

//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//

I think you have good points, here Rokke. There seems to be some sort of inference or world view revealed with this heavy emphasis in 'scientific' and that a theory 'rises up to it', Agree?

In a way it is all very circular, for what is science but theory, and sometimes the theory is wrong in several areas.

I will give an example I think we both can relate too. And that was the significance of Bernoulli’s principle in the theory of lift.

This was wrong in that Bernoulli’s principle played not near the role projected in lift generation , and was flat out wrong in the suggestion that the air flows meet back up at the trailing edge same time and same airspeed.

I will google the studies for you, but the vortices's say it all.

So one of my points ( and I ask no one to concur) is that ‘science’ can be wrong and yet Man can make advances on theory that does not necessarily reflect reality.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Here you go

InCorrect Lift Theory




Wolf

[Rokke]

"I am not the one who has defined the word theory."

I didn't say that. I said, "how you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll". You didn't define theory, but you did choose to narrow the definition of theory in order to support your argument. Again, your assumptions concerning what is and isn't theory are not relevant to the data presented in this poll.

"All scientific theories are "unproven"."

All theories are unproven. I think I've already said that. That includes the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Again, if you firmly believe one is superior to the other, than you should welcome both being presented in an academic environment. If both are presented objectively, the superiority of one theory over the other should be clear regardless of how you define "theory". Everybody wins.

[Rokke]

Well, you attach the word "science" to a theory and it implies increased credibility. But as I stated originally...a theory is a theory, and I think we can all agree that no theory is proven. And the poll that started this thread indicates a wide majority of Americans believe exposing children to more than one unproven theory concerning the same subject is a good thing. I'm not sure why that is controversial or objectionable. I would think everyone would welcome the broader exposure to all sides of a particular issue.

[Dimensio]

You didn't define theory, but you did choose to narrow the definition of theory in order to support your argument.

When multiple definitions of a word are available, it is important to clarify the definition used in a specific context to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise, false equivocation can result. That was my original point. It is a logical fallacy to believe two concepts are comparable simply because the same word can be used to describe both concepts if that word has a different definition when used in each case.

[RunningWolf]

Zogby does not seem to give you/your concerns much weight in the relevancy category Dimi.

What up with that?

Wolf

[Recovering_Democrat]

I'm all for letting local schools decide curriculum--what and where subjects are taugh, as has been the case pretty much since public schools started. Getting a panel of judges and other "experts" isn't necessary. The only "majority rule" that counts, in my opinion, is that expressed by the democratic process in the school district.

Parents who vote in school board elections know better and are more caring about their kids' education than "professionals" -- whether they be educators, scientists, or lawyer-politicians.

[elfman2]

"Imagine...schools teaching more than one theory concerning a complex subject. "

I agree with the objective. But until one’s found, should we elevate an unsupported hypostasis to theory in science class by calling it one?

[Rokke]

"But until one’s found, should we elevate an unsupported hypostasis to theory in science class by calling it one?"

Obviously, that is part of the grand debate. And even more obviously, the matter will not be resolved on FreeRepublic. But as this poll indicates, there are two generally accepted theories about the origin and development of life on earth. Both remain unproven. Both, by definition remain theories. I would argue that it does not stretch the limits of academic consistency to teach both theories objectively in our schools and let our students decide which sounds more plausible to them.

[elfman2]

" Both, by definition remain theories. "

I see the definition of theory became the focal point last night. If the question is what to include in Science class, shouldn’t “scientific” theory be the measure of inclusion?

What I posted from a recollection of 10th grade Biology looks incomplete. Wikipedia has a pretty succinct description of Scientific Theory under its Theory “ Characteristics” section.

There’s good information on that page under “Science” and “Types of Theories” but the explanations wander around a bit as if they were edited by a committee. (Imagine that from Wikipedia.)

[Rokke]

"I see the definition of theory became the focal point last night."

Yes. And I believe it did because that becomes the only viable reason to exclude the teaching of one widely accepted theory over another. But over the millennia, scientists have debated countless theories that weren't supported by specific, tangible "scientific" evidence. Such debate resolves more than it obscures. And because "intelligent design" is an alternative theory to "evolution" it makes sense to present it concurrently with evolution.

[elfman2]

" Yes. And I believe it did because that becomes the only viable reason to exclude the teaching of one widely accepted theory over another"

Note that 1) you called it a viable reason, 2) that you’re still not using the term “scientific” theory regarding what should be in a science class and 3) that AFAIK high school science class has never been the medium for teaching alternatives inconsistent with science.

[Dark Knight]

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

Species diversity to evolution or Darwinian theory of evolution? Species is LOOSELY defined. WRT evolution, theory and fact are interchangeable (see talkorigins). Biologists have been overstating ToEs for many decades. The mechanisms are loosely defined, like niche competition. The fossil record is a very grainy picture of the past (and the further back the grainier), but is touted as so much proof that no one should question it.

But the best question of the current ToEs is: What major practical application in biology is directly related to a ToE being applied?

Hear the silence?

It has crappy definitions, crappy logic, and no useful major applications. Darwin's theory has been around since what 1859 or so. Maybe it is time for Darwinists to produce or become extinct.

DK

[TeenagedConservative]

You say that Creationism is incompatible with "the logic of science" because it involves divine intervention. Your earlier claim was that it was not moral to teach creationism in schools. Which is more moral: A theory that involves God's miracles, or one that denies Him any role in our genesis?

Additionally, the fact that you claim Creationism has "absolutely no" evidence leads me to believe you have been rather avoidant of any of our scientific literature. Darwin's Black Box, for example is an explicitly scientific disproof of Darwinism. Creationism is no more a "hypothesis" than evolution. The major justification for teaching evolution is that there is "no other possibility" that doesn't involve God and is thus naturalistic (the implicit criteria for all theories).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Which is more moral: A theory that involves God's miracles, or one that denies Him any role in our genesis?"

A theory that sticks to the physical evidence.

"Darwin's Black Box, for example is an explicitly scientific disproof of Darwinism."

You mean the book by Behe? The man who has accepted the long age of the earth, common descent, and says that the *designer* might be dead, and that science will have to be changed to allow ID into it? If he *disproved* evolution, he has a funny way of doing it. :)

"The major justification for teaching evolution is that there is "no other possibility" that doesn't involve God and is thus naturalistic (the implicit criteria for all theories)."

Why do you single out evolution, when NO theory in science invokes nonphysical, untestable causes? Why not attack the theories of gravity? It doesn't mention God either.