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.

[elfman2]

Devine intervention is incompatible with the characteristics of scientific theory, the only kind of theory currently taught in science class.

There are many arguments like irreducible complexity picking at evolution, as there should be, but that one and others are publicly rebutted. Of course the rebuttal in contested. But if it weren’t, evolution would be a virtual fact, like the theory of gravity.

So until ID’s proponents develop more than contentious criticism of a widely supported theory though a guess or a faith that’s incompatible with science, it’s immoral to take that faith out of Social Studies and put it into high school Science classes. If you want to teach that such a non-scientific theory preempts science outside a science class, that’s your prerogative. But it’s to all our disadvantages (making it immoral) to undermine high school science with something that by definition is not science.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Hmmm.....I thought that all Zogby polls were leftwing MSM disinformation.

[RogueIsland]

Can't wait for the Zogby poll on quantum chromodynamics.

[nmh]

"A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories."

No surprise about that.

Not ALL parents are totally Godless. Some actually see the fallacies of evolution and want them to also see what God teaches about Creation.

As usual it's just a few LOUD MOUTHED godless liberals that want the Judeo Christian God erased from this earth in EVERY form - gees ... sounds like a few godless freepers I've encountered ... .

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Not ALL parents are totally Godless. Some actually see the fallacies of evolution and want them to also see what God teaches about Creation."

Have the proponents if ID been lying to us when they say that ID has nothing to do with religion? If not, what could you possibly be talking about?

"As usual it's just a few LOUD MOUTHED godless liberals that want the Judeo Christian God erased from this earth in EVERY form - gees ... sounds like a few godless freepers I've encountered ... ."

Again, is ID really just a front for the God of the Bible? You wouldn't be trying to wedge creationism into the classroom under the guise of ID, would you? :)

[nmh]

You can twist my words all you like. You can even redefine my words to suit your world view however the God of the Bible is the Intelligent Designer. You cannot separate the two and the evidence found supports what the Judeo Christian God has stated over and over again, in the Bible. If this offends you, hey, that's your problem and I expect YOU to deal with it on your own time.

Believe whatever you like but don't for one nano second think you will be successful in redefining words to mock Him or muddy the water. LOL!!!

Perhaps you need to learn to TOLERATE an opposing view instead of wordsmithing games.

[Dimensio]

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?

It would appear as though you are confusing concepts. Teaching creationism as science is "immoral" because it is essentially lying to students by claiming that supernatural statements are scientific. The morality implied by a theory has no bearing on its truth value.

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.

There are two problems with your allegation of "disproof". The first is that Darwin's Black Box is published by a man who himself accepts common descent as fact. The second problem is that even if it were a "disproof" of evolution and that the extensive rebuttals of its claims did not exist, this would not amount to evidence of any kind for Biblical Creationism. Creationism is no more a "hypothesis" than evolution

This is also not accurate. Evolution is supported by observations of existing biological systems, an extensive fossil record -- detailing not only what the fossils are, but where they are located in relation to other fossils -- and, most recently, in DNA sequencing. Biblical Creationism, however, has no physical evidence for support. Moreover, as it is a fundamentally supernatural claim, it cannot be considered science.

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).

This is also incorrect. Were there no supporting evidence for evolution, then there would be no scientific explanation for the diversity of species at all. Science is inherently naturalisitc; supernatural explanations are not science, and as such should not be taught as such.

[RunningWolf]

Why not attack the theories of gravity? The evos always ask?

A better question. Is why are the secularist atheist humanists attempting to use this toe theory to advance their agenda?

Yet once again, one must do an inversion-to take the reciprocal, in order to get to the core of the evo agenda.

BTW all theories at present have failures, break down at the ends, do not hold true at several levels. evo or toe is in turn 'a theory' based on theories in several fields all of those theories with their own holes gaps etc.

And yet this is what the evos would have you accept as your reality. I am one of the few that would say 'no thanks' to that even with no other competing theory. I would rather be in the group of scientists who acknowledge they are in uncharted seas than accept the false map of evo.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Not ALL parents are totally Godless.

I do not see the logical connection between this statement and evolution. Are you suggesting that all who accept the theory of evolution are "Godless"? If so, then you are mistaken. The majority of people who accept the theory of evolution are, in fact, theists.

Some actually see the fallacies of evolution

If there are truly "fallcies" in evolution, perhaps you could document some of them.

and want them to also see what God teaches about Creation.

Curious. There are thousands of religious creation stories that have emerged through the ages. Why do you believe that all parents who would not want evolution taught would instead favour one specific story?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can twist my words all you like."

I've done no such thing. I merely asked some questions.

"You can even redefine my words to suit your world view however the God of the Bible is the Intelligent Designer."

I redefined nothing. Thanks for admitting that the designer is the God of the Bible though.

"If this offends you, hey, that's your problem and I expect YOU to deal with it on your own time."

It offends me not in the least. What DOES offend me, is the lying that the proponents of ID engage in. THEY claim that ID has NOTHING to do with God or religion. THEY claim that ID is a science, when it is obviously just theology dressed up in a shabby coat.

"Believe whatever you like but don't for one nano second think you will be successful in redefining words to mock Him or muddy the water. LOL!!!"

Your *lol* makes no sense in the context of this sentence. And, as I have not redefined anything, your claim is meaningless. I have never mocked God.

" Perhaps you need to learn to TOLERATE an opposing view instead of wordsmithing games."

Perhaps you need to drop the drama queen theatrics. I am tolerant of people who believe in ID, but not when they try to push this clearly theological claim into a science classroom in a taxpayer funded school. As you have already said, the designer is understood to be the God of the Bible. ID belongs in Sunday school.

[nmh]

The more I see and read about the evidence, the sillier evolution is.

I am not the least bit threatened by evolution being compared to Creation. In fact I encourage it! No kidding! Comparing the two puts evolution in its proper place and exposes it's non science based hypotheses. Creation fully supports the laws of science and even kids can see that.

It's interesting to watch kids come alive with questions and see how Creation easily answers them. It's almost as though they're rejuvenated since under evolution, they're being preached at with no room for criticism - well, because it is a religion to MANY.

[nmh]

LOL!

I wish I had oodles of time to waste and rip apart your hypocritical reply but I don't. Your reply speaks for itself. You are more than welcome to go round and round with someone else on your worn out wordsmithing games.

Perhaps someday, although I am not optimistic, you will see how objective science supports Creation, or if you prefer "Intelligent Design" without even using "religion". I suppose I should be careful ... some despise God so much that the phrase "Intelligent Design" is barely tolerated. What's nice about "truth" is that it NEVER evolves. It's always there and it's consistent - no wild theories or hoaxes to contend with ... "truth" doesn't change.

As always, believe whatever you wish!

[Dimensio]

Perhaps someday, although I am not optimistic, you will see how objective science supports Creation, or if you prefer "Intelligent Design" without even using "religion".

If you believe that this is the case, why do you not reference some of this objective science?

I suppose I should be careful ... some despise God so much that the phrase "Intelligent Design" is barely tolerated.

Again, why do you assume that all who oppose Intelligent Design "despise God" when it is clearly established that a large number of those people are theists? I am curious as to why you continue to make clearly false assumptions despite ample evidence to the contrary.

[elfman2]

"Have the proponents if ID been lying to us when they say that ID has nothing to do with religion? If not, what could you possibly be talking about? "

Nice catch. And for noticing "his" screwup, he tries to say you’re mocking God? That's kid'a pathetic...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I wish I had oodles of time to waste and rip apart your hypocritical reply but I don't."

I have not been hypocritical at all. Do you even know what the word means?

"You are more than welcome to go round and round with someone else on your worn out wordsmithing games."

What in the world are you talking about? I asked you if the designer of ID is really the God of the Bible, and you said yes. This puzzled me, as the proponents of ID all publicly state that ID has nothing to do with God or religion. You say it does. Someone isn't being honest here, and I think that it is the proponents of ID.

"Perhaps someday, although I am not optimistic, you will see how objective science supports Creation, or if you prefer "Intelligent Design" without even using "religion"."

When creationism/ID presents a testable claim that doesn't go against the available evidence I'll consider it. That day hasn't come yet.

"some despise God so much that the phrase "Intelligent Design" is barely tolerated."

Some must despise God so much that they pretend that ID has nothing to do with God. That would be the major proponents of ID.

"What's nice about "truth" is that it NEVER evolves."

What's nice about science and the knowledge gained from it is that it DOES evolve when knew information becomes available. Can't say that for creationism.

" As always, believe whatever you wish!"

Well, from your testimony, I will believe that the proponents of ID are all liars, because as you say the designer is God, but they say that the designer is not God and that those who claim that ID has anything to do with God are ignorant of ID. Thanks for clearing that up for us. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Nice catch. And for noticing "his" screwup, he tries to say you’re mocking God? That's kid'a pathetic..."

Apparently I am also a hypocrite and I am redefining words too, though he won't say how I am doing either. Interesting.

[Dominic Harr]

"This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it," said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

The Storyline is a lie.

People were asked if teachers should teach all evidence. Something only an Evo would answer, "yes" to -- since there is no evidence for ID, this poll couldn't be referring to ID.

[js1138]

Perhaps you need to learn to TOLERATE an opposing view instead of wordsmithing games.

It is difficult to tolerate people who consistently misrepresent themselves. The ID movement has denied that ID has anything to do with religion at all. Criticism of ID cannot be construed as criticism of religion.

[elfman2]

"People were asked if teachers should teach all evidence. Something only an Evo would answer, "yes" to -- since there is no evidence for ID, this poll couldn't be referring to ID."

Another good catch! Damn Freepers are sharp today!

[Dominic Harr]

Another good catch! Damn Freepers are sharp today!

Sometimes, even I get lucky.

I do think this is a test of who only reads headlines v. who reads the actual article.

;-)