Results from nationwide poll (Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate)

Zogby International ^ | February 3, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Narrative Summary

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

(Click excerpt link for responses)

5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?

(Click excerpt link for responses)

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

(Click excerpt link for responses)

[tacticalogic]

No, as opposed to having a mocicum of intellectual integrity.

And that's your idea of presenting a civil argument on the weaknesses of the ToE?

[Cedric]

Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t make creationism a science.

Correct. Facts and evidence do. And there are plenty of both. Let them be heard!

[firebrand]

This poll measures something that is not controversial. It's not surprising that most people want different scientific evidence discussed in the science classroom.

[ColdWater]

It should include teaching enough about ID, so that students can say why it isn’t a scientific theory.

I think the poll referred only to teaching scientific evidence. That leaves out ID.

[ColdWater]

It should include teaching enough about ID, so that students can say why it isn’t a scientific theory.

You really want them to teach that God may be dead?

[LeGrande]

Wow, you guys are gutless.

I actually think that TOE should be compared to Creationism and Lamarkian selection in biology classes. Teaching why those systems (Creationism and Lamarkian Selection) are wrong is very educational and actually might help students understand Evolution better.

[Cedric]

You've got no evidence, none of the promised (for 150 years) confirmatory fossils, you employ astonishingly sophomoric circular reasoning and your fascists, yet you want opponents to be civil?

You're a hoot.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Trying to pick holes in evolution doesn’t make creationism a science.

True enough. But if those wholes are being picked based on the hypothesis that the biblical account of creation and the noaitic flood are true, then it’s science. For instance: creationists predict that the earth is young, they predict not a tree of life, but an orchard of trees with no transitionals outside the bounds of the biblical kinds; they predict evidence of a global flood, etc, etc. They are forming hypothesis, and they are testing the same using the scientific method. That’s science.

[Cedric]

Bring it.

[mlo]

"Correct. Facts and evidence do. And there are plenty of both. Let them be heard!"

And if I asked you about some of them what I'd get is a bunch of reasons why evolution must be wrong. Like I said, trying to knock down one theory doesn't build a different one.

[tacticalogic]

You've got no evidence, none of the promised (for 150 years) confirmatory fossils, you employ astonishingly sophomoric circular reasoning and your fascists, yet you want opponents to be civil?

Is that the argument you intend to bring into the classroom under the premise of presenting scientific evidence?

[Cedric]

I’m not opposed to destroying the flimsy myth of evolution, first, if that’s where you want to start.

[Marie2]

In our home school I teach my kids what evolution is, often using the evolution scientist’s own writings, so that they have an antithesis to our thesis that creation science is correct.

Having been raised to believe in evolution I have no qualms discussing its main teachings as well as contrasting it to the creationist view.

Evolutionists, in general, do not seem to share the same confidence and refuse to even mention the main creation science teachings, even if only critically.

[Cedric]

The burden of proof is on the evos. And they've been found wanting.

{and wanton}

[tacticalogic]

The burden of proof is on the evos. And they've been found wanting. {and wanton}

If the burden is on them, they're the only one's with any business in the classroom.

[cmonkey]

I wish they would ask if people favor/oppose school vouchers in this kind of poll. It kind of seems like the question of what we indoctrinate kids with skips over the question of if we should be indoctrinating kids in school to begin with. I think the ultimate answer to the evolution/id debate (as well as a ton of others) should be left up to the market and parents rather then a bunch of pointy headed educrats.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I don't follow? In what way does what I said imply teaching that God may be dead?

BTW, I have deep respect for the scientific method — but, I also know that it can never reveal all truths in the universe. I also know that all science should be treated as “provisional facts”. (One should say: “not yet disproven”, rather than “proven”.)

[Clemenza]

Just because a majority of the sheeple think that a fairy tale should be taught in science class doesn't make it right.

Keep your bibles in theology class, please.

There, I said it. This is the main issue (actually the only at this point) issue that divides me from Xians.

[Cedric]

They’ve had a century and a half.

Time’s up.

Bring on ID.

[whattajoke]

Evolutionists, in general, do not seem to share the same confidence and refuse to even mention the main creation science teachings, even if only critically.

Interestingly, chemistry teachers also usually fail to mention alchemy and geologists have also discarded the flat earth notion. Am I to understand you have a problem with this as well?