"So not only would it be morally proper..."
It's not.
uh oh, this is going to get the Darwinians' tail feathers all flustered. Should be a good read in a few hours.
We don't trust Zogby on any other polls, so why this one? Even though I am a supporter of the ID theory and that it, and marco-evolutionary biology, should be taught side-by-side, I still don't trust Zogby. JMO
I don't think we want to teach science based on polls.
Most americans believe in ghosts. 43% of young adults believe in astrology suggesting that may reach majorioty support soon.
Most Americans don't understand higher math or science so it doesn't make sense to decide what math or science to teach based on polls.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hmmm.....I thought that all Zogby polls were leftwing MSM disinformation.
Can't wait for the Zogby poll on quantum chromodynamics.
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.
This conflict has nothing to do with science. The unadorned reason for the war against Intelligent Design in favor of Darwin's theory is to deny the existence of God. I wish the issue was so defined.
I'll gladly advocate "intelligent design" theories being taught in school just as soon as it actually *has* a theory. To date, it doesn't (even after 3000+ years of trying), and I doubt it ever will.
And if anyone wants to try to suggest one, keep in mind that in order to be a "theory" in the epistemological sense (and not the vernacular sense as in "notion" or "guess"), an explanation has to meet several specific criteria. And "intelligent design" currently fails those on all counts.
Additionally, I'm just *dying* to hear someone expound what, exactly, an "intelligent design" curriculum would consist of. Take away the misguided evolution-bashing, the fallacious arguments, and the outright misrepresentations, and there just isn't much left to *teach* about "ID", other than, "well, some people think that some deity or unknown aliens might have had some involvement somewhere at some time for some unspecified reasons in the history of life... also... um... okay, let's break for lunch, shall we?"
If it means that God designed the evolutionary process - I'm all for it.
If it means the Earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs lived along side humans (like in the Flintstones) - it has no place in science classes.