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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 301-304 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
You think after BamaKennedy and his crew literally ‘enforce’ that ‘scientific methodology’ some of these will start crying foul. They set this junk scientific methodology in motion, and even got the supremes to give them so called standing....
And once they chased God out of their halls of worship called public school, they just might get to find out what public option means in their literal world.
See now for some it is going to be to little too late when their research is no longer fit for survival.
To: count-your-change; Ira_Louvin
Hello Ira! I can’t hear you, did I miss your reply? Muller’s letter to Stalin makes great reading!
62
posted on
10/28/2009 11:19:27 PM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: tpanther
63
posted on
10/28/2009 11:20:15 PM PDT
by
Rafterman
("If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." -- Curtis LeMay)
To: count-your-change
How else can a person answer a poll about what they have heard of except by self identification? For "heard of," probably no other way. For "know something about"--well, it depends on whether the pollsters care whether what they know is accurate. A series of questions could weed out the ones who would say they know something but really don't. I doubt these pollsters did that, though, so the conclusion that "the more they know, the less they want" is unwarranted.
To: Hiddigeigei
Yes, they do, on purpose.
65
posted on
10/29/2009 3:30:44 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: GodGunsGuts; Wacka; allmendream; humblegunner; Gumlegs; whattajoke; mnehring; RightWingNilla; ...
Hey Looky...
MindPollution News!
66
posted on
10/29/2009 3:33:54 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: Rafterman
Hmm.. forgot that one.
Very good.
67
posted on
10/29/2009 3:38:47 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: telebob
You and a crevo-load of others that have voted with their feet — and their money — to move away from crevoloonyville.
68
posted on
10/29/2009 3:43:30 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: metmom
The Fairtax loonys weren’t paying enough per post so you moved to crevo central, eh?
69
posted on
10/29/2009 3:46:28 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: Ira_Louvin
Microevolution is a term used by crevos to cover the fact that they are Microcephalics.
70
posted on
10/29/2009 3:48:34 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: Rafterman
71
posted on
10/29/2009 4:07:35 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: Rafterman
great, please make a note of it for next time and pass it along!
72
posted on
10/29/2009 5:01:07 AM PDT
by
tpanther
(Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles. Bad analogy. I would say that just because I can walk to my kitchen does not mean that I can walk to Australia.
Microevolution helps determine if my children will have red hair. But determining that a land animal can walk into the sea and, over time, evolve into a whale is to see genetic change on a very different level. I believe you see it as "the same thing, only more of it" and I see that as a substantial logical leap. I don't believe we have proof that you can get there from here.
73
posted on
10/29/2009 5:40:58 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
To: wastedyears
I’ve already summarized it in the past and I was ignored and promptly ridiculed by a YEC supporter. I’m not going to waste my time anymore.
I ask that exact same question to them and they change the subject. Then they insult me again. Therefore, I’m going to assume that young Earth creationists believe that humanity was made from clay pots like in the African creation myths. What else am I supposed to assume?
74
posted on
10/29/2009 5:44:19 AM PDT
by
Soothesayer
(The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
To: Rafterman; GodGunsGuts
And there are plenty of us that think these threads DON'T qualify for News/Activism. What makes you special? Same thing that makes YOU think that YOU'RE so special that YOU think that YOU have the right to determine where threads are placed.
Don't you see your hypocrisy in your pitching a fit because you don't think that I should have my way about where threads are placed and yet demand your way?
These threads aren't on this forum because I think they should be. They're here because JR thinks they should be. It so happens that my position on the placement of these threads is the same as his.
If you don't like it, take it up with HIM. He calls the shots around here.
75
posted on
10/29/2009 7:07:51 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: xcamel
I pity you. You demonstrate a real inability to deal with reality.
76
posted on
10/29/2009 7:12:15 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Thank you for your reply. I believe I understand your view form reading the quote. The quote maintains evolution is a theory and it is not clear to me if you or the quote believe that evolution is provable. thanks
To: Rafterman
“maybe a lot of us are just sick of these stupid “creationists vs. evolutionists” threads”
For now it is still a free country and you are free to not click on the article or post on the thread.
78
posted on
10/29/2009 8:32:07 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: scripter
79
posted on
10/29/2009 8:35:22 AM PDT
by
christianhomeschoolmommaof3
(Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
To: ClearCase_guy
Evolution is not something to believe in, it is a matter of accepting the available evidence
If you take micro-evolution has we have observed and give it 4.5 billion years you will end up with the diversity of life we see today.
Lets take a look at the wolf, if man can turn a wolf into a Chihuahua in a few hundred years, just imagine what nature can do given billions of years.
You are presenting an Argument from personal incredulity. Just because it is something that we cannot understand is not proof that God did it.
80
posted on
10/29/2009 8:43:30 AM PDT
by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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