Skip to comments.
The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination
Evolution News & Views ^
| October 27, 2009
| Anika Smith
Posted on 10/28/2009 7:34:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination
According to an international poll released by the British Council, the majority of Americans 60% support teaching alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The percentage is the same for Britons, despite the fact that both countries have been inundated with pro-Darwin media coverage in this super-mega Darwin Year.
Of course, the British media reporting this are chagrined. Britain is the birthplace of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and the official-sounding British Council, the UK group behind the Darwin Now campaign that commissioned the Ipsos MORI poll, have spent precious resources educating the world about Darwin. Now some believe the poll shows that efforts by Darwinist organizations aren't working.
Head of the British Councils Darwin Now program Fern Elsdon-Baker said, Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process.
While Darwins apologists might try to explain the poll numbers as an example of ignorance influencing peoples beliefs, the numbers themselves suggest a different picture.
Across the board, most respondents from the ten countries polled thought that other perspectives on the origins of species such as intelligent design and creationism should be taught in science class*. When the poll is weighted to include only those respondents who have heard of Charles Darwin and know something about his theory of evolution, the percentage supporting alternate theories increases, from 60% to 66% in Britain and 60% to 64% in the U.S.
The correlation appears again when we consider which countries have more knowledge of Darwins theory. The highest numbers of those in support of alternative theories in the classroom correspond to the highest numbers of those familiar with Charles Darwin 60% in Britain, 65% in Mexico, 61% in China, 66% in Russia, and 60% in the U.S. It appears that the more people know about Darwins theory, the more they want to see alternatives in science class.
The basic truth is that most people want evolution to have to compete for its place of dominance in their schools. Interestingly, the U.S. was the only nation with significant knowledge of Darwin where respondents chose the option theories about the origins of species and development of life on earth should not be taught in science lessons at all. 14% chose that, compared with 3% in Britain.
*This takes both those who select "other perspectives" only and those who select "other perspectives" together with "evolutionary theories." It should be noted that Discovery Institute opposes efforts to mandate teaching alternative theories in the science classroom we'd rather have the whole picture of evolution, the scientific arguments both for and against the theory, presented instead.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Russia; US: Washington; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; china; christian; creation; creationuts; darwiniacs; darwinism; divideandconquerfr; doesntbelonginnews; education; educationyahright; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; mexico; moralabsolutes; nonintelligentdesign; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; russia; science; socialism; spammer; templeofdarwin; templeofnutters; ussherites; yecspam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 301-304 next last
To: metmom
That is called speciation, and is an observed fact. I am asking for the empirical evidence that this is due to a loss for genetic information, or is something other than observable evolution.
101
posted on
10/29/2009 10:26:55 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: Ira_Louvin
YOU SAID “So how do you explain that fact that due to speciation different species can no longer interbreed?”
I SAID “Reproductive isolation has caused them to LOSE the ability to interbreed. A loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution.”
I was agreeing with YOUR statement that different species can NO LONGER INTERBREED. I made no assertion.
If you need something in writing here is a link to a book. It isn’t a creationist book.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4978&page=41
Second full paragraph down.
Maybe I am not understanding your question.
102
posted on
10/29/2009 10:27:50 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: BrandtMichaels
You made the assertion and yet are unable to provide supporting empirical evidence.
That is very telling.
103
posted on
10/29/2009 10:28:56 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
What empirical evidence do you have to support the assertion Reproductive isolation has caused them to LOSE the ability to interbreed. A loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution.
104
posted on
10/29/2009 10:32:04 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Where is the evidence, then, of the GAIN of information in DNA?
That’s what evos constantly claim occurred. How do they PROVE it? Or is it only assumed?
105
posted on
10/29/2009 10:36:12 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Ira_Louvin; metmom
Sorry I did misunderstand your question. Here is your empirical evidence. If you don’t want to read the whole thing then Google “speciation a loss of genetic information”. It is the 8th result down.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/13/5246.full
106
posted on
10/29/2009 10:37:04 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: Ira_Louvin
We have trouble defining what a species is -- I'm not at all sure that we have observed speciation.
We have fruit flies turning into other fruit flies. And salamanders turning into other salamanders. But I question how much real speciation has been observed.
I think we have theory and assumptions and that those sometimes get confused with empirical fact.
107
posted on
10/29/2009 10:38:44 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Ok, still not clear.
Are you asking..
Where is the evidence that it is a loss of genetic information that cause species to lose the ability to interbreed?
Or
Where is the evidence that a loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution?
I have answered the first with a link.
108
posted on
10/29/2009 10:40:26 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Ok, still not clear.
Are you asking..
Where is the evidence that it is a loss of genetic information that cause species to lose the ability to interbreed?
Or
Where is the evidence that a loss of genetic information is the exact opposite of what you need for macroevolution?
I have answered the first with a link.
109
posted on
10/29/2009 10:40:28 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: Ira_Louvin
You made an assertion that I said it was empirical. Very telling also for you. Not to mention too lazy to do your own research.
Although genetic drift probably could be proven empirically if leftists had not already over-taken the science literature and peer-review process through consensus.
Makes one wonder just how much scientific advancement and prosperity the US would enjoy were it not for the liberals and Demos with their bullying and cry-babying tactics (also conservatives / Repubs appeasing same)...
To: BrandtMichaels
Argumentum ad Hominem :
The fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.
111
posted on
10/29/2009 10:53:31 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
Speciation is a part of evolution:
Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can favor different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
What empirical evidence do you have to show it is not?
112
posted on
10/29/2009 10:57:20 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Looks like you’re out of bullets.
113
posted on
10/29/2009 10:58:06 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
To: ClearCase_guy
A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
This is an empirical fact., it has been observed both in nature, and in the lab.
114
posted on
10/29/2009 10:59:18 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: Ira_Louvin
115
posted on
10/29/2009 10:59:50 AM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: ClearCase_guy
No just pointing out the obvious.
116
posted on
10/29/2009 11:00:26 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: Ira_Louvin
And yet you give no examples.
Go ahead -- tell me about a species that has been observed to form in the lab. And if you tell me about fruit flies turning into fruit flies, I'll give up on you.
117
posted on
10/29/2009 11:01:00 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Oh that’s right, I forgot again, creationists are not allowed to use the same tactics that evos use. Especially if there is a latin term for it. /s
To: Ira_Louvin
Speciation is real. It has been observed. “Species” is a man made term to categorize. Taxonomy is a tool. Just because something is listed as a different species doesn’t make it a different animal altogether.
Wolves, domesticated dogs, foxes are all different species. Are you suggesting that they aren’t all the same kind of animal, a dog? They are still all types of dogs. They haven’t went from being a lizard (reptile) to a dog (mammal).
Some species can interbreed, some cannot, some can interbreed but produce infertile offspring. They are still the same types of animals.
Speciation has been extrapolated as “proof” of goo to you evolution. Where is your empirical evidence that speciation results in a reptile turning into a mammal?
I gave you a study about speciation resulting in the loss of genetic information and you tried to change the subject. That study IS proof that speciation does not result in reptile to mammal type evolution but only in variation within a animal. A reptile turning into a mammal requires ALOT of additional information. AGAIN, speciation results in a LOSS of information. What is the mechanism for the gain in genetic information that it would take for a lizard to turn into a dog?
119
posted on
10/29/2009 11:15:42 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Agreed. You have no argument here. There are alot of different species of dogs. They are still dogs. Now show me the lizard that has changed into a dog.
120
posted on
10/29/2009 11:18:13 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 301-304 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson