Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 Council’s 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 Darwin’s apologists might try to explain the poll numbers as an example of ignorance influencing people’s 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 Darwin’s 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 Darwin’s 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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 301-304 next last
To: AndrewC

Nice to see you back, AC! Hope all is well with you and yours :o)


201 posted on 10/29/2009 8:30:44 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm

Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/


202 posted on 10/29/2009 8:38:58 PM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Rafterman

Sorry I just realized upon re-reading your homepage that I’m not worthy to be on the CreatioNuts ping list as I don’t normally post any news/activism articles and I try not to insult others for their beliefs. Questioning yes, insulting no, not intentional anyways.

For that matter I don’t think most of the others belong there either. Maybe we could just be honorary members or something...

Also a big thank you for your service to our country!


203 posted on 10/29/2009 9:04:30 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

“Stasis in the fossil record, countless complete and distinct life-forms appearing suddenly in the strata, polystrate fossils clearly showing that the sedimentary layers could not have been layed down over eons of time, worldwide evidence of a global flood, errors and assumptions with radio isotope age dating, etc.”

The author is correct in asserting that that the fossils were buried quickly, probably by a flood. This is not news to geologists. It has been known for hundreds of years. The upright “polystrate” tree fossils are usually deeply rooted into a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), sandstone, or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Even though wood buried in certain marshes is nearly immune to rotting, other material may only last a few decades before falling to pieces.

However, the author runs into a problem suggesting that it was a GLOBAL flood. These layers are not all found at one single layer of the geological column. For example, giant lycopod trees are only found in Carboniferous Period rocks and cypress trees aren’t found below the Cretaceous Period. The same applies to their leaves, spores, and pollen. Many trees are clearly in situ because you can see the fossilization of their delicate root system. The upright trees above them are also finely rooted in place. Therefore, the upper tree grew AFTER the lower tree was buried. An example of this is a burrow pit near Donaldsonville, LA. When they excavated backswamp clays to rebuild the adjacent levee, they uncovered three levels of upright cypress forests buried on top of each other beneath the recent floodplain. These polystrate trees are buried within recent Mississippi River deposits that are only 4,000 years old. The much older upright trees in Yellowstone Park are similarly layered. Therefore, they were not transported to different strata from one big flood.

Did a really big flood happen in the past? It’s possible but upright fossils don’t enter into it.


204 posted on 10/29/2009 9:07:33 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Questioning yes, insulting no, not intentional anyways.

I will endeavor to follow your example, sir.

Also a big thank you for your service to our country!

You're very welcome! As the saying goes, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!

205 posted on 10/29/2009 9:20:49 PM PDT by Rafterman ("If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." -- Curtis LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks for the ping!


206 posted on 10/29/2009 9:51:49 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
The ASSUMPTION is that they share these commmon characteristic because they have a common ancestor. The ASSUMPTION is that it’s because canids and bears had a common ancestor longer ago than foxes and wolves did.

It's not an assumption. It's a component of the theory that meshes with the other components and shares supporting evidence with them. You act like scientists just decided on these relationships out of thin air.

I didn’t personally insult you. I was just tired of repeating that I have no problem with taxonomy (except the classification of people).

And I didn't personally insult you. As I said, I was merely trying to respond in kind to what struck me as a condescending statement. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. I don't think we need to pursue it further.

What question have you answered that is completely in opposition to your paradigm?

You haven't asked me anything.

They could have some very unique characteristics in years to come. They may not even resemble the horses of today

So if these hypothetical future animals have unique characteristics and don't look like today's horses and probably can't interbreed with today's horses, what makes them still a horse? Answer, I suspect: you know they started as horses, so you'll always say they're "still horses" no matter what they turn into. It's a closed argument that, in combination with your inability to say what would make it not a horse, is set up so that you can never lose.

So what evidence would convince you that a horse will always be a horse no matter how much the appearance of the horse changes?

One piece of evidence I've asked for several times is a firm prediction of just how much variation the horse is capable of. If all the variation in the horse kind is frontloaded, as creationists argue, we should be able to locate the "extra" genetic information that's not being used at the moment and figure out just how far a horse can change. You suggested that they might not even look like horses any more; what will they look like? How much change is possible? When creationists start to answer questions like that, or even propose ways of looking for the answers and start doing the research, I'll give the ideas more weight than I now do.

What if a group of people with 12 fingers and toes decided that they all wanted to live together in one city. What if that city was flooded out and they were all fossilized. In 1000 years a scientist digs them up and says that at one time humans all had six fingers and toes.

Yes, it's possible that all the fossils we have are the results of unique, one-off events and therefore tell us nothing about populations in general. I find that much more unlikely than the idea that they're random, representative samples, but if that's what you need to believe, I can't stop you.

207 posted on 10/30/2009 1:47:00 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Nice qualifier "in every HS I know" is...that way, when I mention a HS, you can say "I don't know that school"....well, in MY high school, biology was not required 20 years ago, and was not required when my niece graduated 3 years ago. All that is required is one year of science....biology, physics, chemistry, earth science, whatever the student chooses.

....and even then, we're talking high school biology here. Evolution isn't even taught such that a person would have an educated grasp as to what it is, it's "mentioned" for a few days.

That's right, disrespect a school you don't even know. My school educates students because it's coupled with parents that take an active roll in their kids' educations....active further than going to school board meetings and whining about why they're not teaching young earth creationism in a science class.

208 posted on 10/30/2009 4:31:49 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

You still show a lack of reading and/or comprehension. Of course there would not be uniformity in the sedimentary layers worldwide. The only way that would be possible would be for all the soils, rocks and sediments to be uniform both before and after.

The big global flood would be followed by lots of smaller local floods. The best evidence for a global flood is the the mid-oceanic trenches that circumnavigate the globe. This hydroplate theory also explains uplift, basalts and inverted geologic columns.


209 posted on 10/30/2009 5:12:02 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry; metmom

I can agree with you on a few things in your post. The HS I went to did not require biology (just x number of credits in science) nor geometry for me. Although I had to make a special request to skip geometry (did not care for the teacher) and was only allowed because of my good grades in algebra. I skipped geometry and went on to trigonometry and calculus where I also got good grades.

What’s funny about your arguments though is how often you make claims against my fellow creationists that they did not make. Truth, integrity, and consistency in your words could add much weight to your arguments.

I (along with the majority of FR creationists) would simply love to see evolution taught adressing both the pros and cons no matter what level of school. There is much factual observatonal science that simply turns your macro-evolutionary arguments completely upside down. Yet those who pursue evolution as factual and proven do so either:

a. without addressing the problems, or

b. asserting the most complicated and laughable ‘solutions.’


210 posted on 10/30/2009 5:33:17 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Instead of framing that in the form of a question you decided to be condescending. Why should I bother discussing hydroplate theory?


211 posted on 10/30/2009 7:28:11 AM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry
I bet the “majority of Americans” have no clue what evolution is.

Of course they know. Its when snakes morph into fish and such. Monkeys can also transform into humans, but we can't figure out why there are still monkeys around today. Millions of evolutionists are making trillions of dollars off of government grants to look for the answer (wink wink).

212 posted on 10/30/2009 8:32:59 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Of course they know. Its when snakes morph into fish and such. Monkeys can also transform into humans, but we can't figure out why there are still monkeys around today. Millions of evolutionists are making trillions of dollars off of government grants to look for the answer (wink wink).

PRE-cisely the point. Americans have no clue what evolution is.

213 posted on 10/30/2009 8:43:52 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

I like your screenname. It reminds me of Strawberry Alarm Clock.


214 posted on 10/30/2009 9:18:40 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3

Could you please explain to me what you think this animal was:

Thrinaxodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrinaxodon

I cant figure it out.


215 posted on 10/30/2009 9:21:05 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Reminds ME of the 25th Infantry Division


216 posted on 10/30/2009 9:44:23 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“It’s not an assumption.”

We really have nothing else to discuss if you can’t even admit that everyone has a bias based on their worldview.
It IS an assumption. There is no proof for it. Good day!


217 posted on 10/30/2009 10:15:06 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

I am not sure. I have never seen one. Neither has the artist that depicted it. An artist interpretation of what it may have looked like really doesn’t do me any good. Maybe it was a unique creature that has since become extinct.


218 posted on 10/30/2009 10:17:14 AM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: christianhomeschoolmommaof3
We really have nothing else to discuss if you can’t even admit that everyone has a bias based on their worldview. It IS an assumption.

Your second statement does not follow from your first. "Assumption" is one of those words like "theory" and "faith" that creationists like to blur the distinction between the meanings of. But I understand your desire to withdraw from the conversation. You have a good day, too.

219 posted on 10/30/2009 10:49:04 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

How does a 3.2 million year old hominid fossil, A hoax that was exposed by the scientific community 56 years ago, and mistake that was corrected by the scientific community 82 years ago provide any evidence to falsify the evolutionary theory?


220 posted on 10/30/2009 11:04:20 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson