Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[K1avg]

You were doing pretty good until this:

Post #45: "Indeed, because anything extraneous tends to be bred out of existence, or it kills the "host," and thus the trait isn't propogated. Yet another bit of evidence for evolution."

Post #46: "What purpose for the appendix? Or the useless genetic "junk" in the human genome? Or nipples on men?"

Odd...Perhaps while you're at it you can explain away the Second Law of Thermodynamics for us, too?

See any resemblance?

drdino.com

[Revolting cat!]

Oh, goody, another pie fight!

[orionblamblam]

You make no sense. The incorrect point was raised that "everytrhing has a purpose," when clearly not everything does, thus refuting part of Creationism; in I pointed out than extraneous things *TEND* to be bred out of existence. You do know what "tend to" means, do you not?

In evolution, the tendency is to breed out the useless, but tendency does not equate to perfection. But if God did it... imperfection means an imperfect creation and thus an imperfect God. So are you argueing against God?

> See any resemblance?
What, between pictures of Darwin and a red X?

[K1avg]

I pointed out than extraneous things *TEND* to be bred out of existence.

Yes. If I read your post correctly, you said that the "imperfect" traits were either bred out OR killed the "host." In light of this, the self-contradiction is even more embarrassing.

You do know what "tend to" means, do you not?

It's garbage like this that makes no one take you seriously. We can have an intelligent debate, or we can throw mud at each other. Your choice.

But if God did it... imperfection means an imperfect creation and thus an imperfect God

Horrendous non sequiter. If we had been created perfect, then WE would BE God, correct? The simple fact that we are imperfect validates the existence of a superior being, does it not?

What, between pictures of Darwin and a red X?

It's a picture of this loser:
But a red "X" works just as well.

Anxiously awaiting your reply...

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

It tells the objective observer that building an explanation for our existence from fossils takes a leap of faith that rivals the Grand Canyon. I'm still waiting for that first verifiable transitional form.

[K1avg]

Maybe this picture works:

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I believe Dark Knight was referring to those in the scientific community, not members of your extended family.

[Rytwyng]

Intelligent Design... it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.

Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days. Correct interpretation of the Hebrew allows for "days" to be allegorical for much longer periods of time.

An old earth, but one where macroevolution did not occur, is most consistent with scripture and makes scientific sense as well.

Testable Creation Model

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

There are over 300 distinct Native American creation stories. Gonna teach all of them?

Now you're grasping at straws. Many of these stories are fanciful and fun to read, but bear no resemblance to the world in which we live. Creation by a Being infinitely superior to ourselves is the only rational explanation for existence. Mankind's spirit agrees with this, but our rebellious nature seeks to deny God. Irritating, but true.

[DannyTN]

If there are 300 scientists who are willing to put in writing that they are skeptical of the claims of evolution, then there are probably 30,000 who are skeptical but afraid to put it in writing because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

[HairOfTheDog]

Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days.

I also think that we could assume that God knew more about Creation than he outlined in Genesis. It isn't a recipe... it doesn't describe ~how~ it was done, only that it was. What did he leave out? - everything man at that time couldn't understand. Perhaps he would explain more today, with our relative advancements in Science, and perhaps he would still have to talk to us as if we were children in our relative comprehension.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Is the Hebrew word for "days" used in Jonah 1:17 the same as the one used repeatedly in Genesis 1?

[DannyTN]

There is no conflict in Genesis. The two creation narratives are simply different in scope. The first is much more high level, the second includes more details on the creation of man and fewer on the world. There is no conflict, one should be seen as the elaboration of the other.

[microgood]

Biogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution. What happened AFTER life arose... *that* can be (and is) explained via evolution.

If this is the case, why teach it at all in the schools? I have no problem with the concepts of micro-evolution where there is real science going on, but why bother with the dinosaur crap and all those ages and stuff when the average student is not going to be digging for dinosaurs or transitional species. That stuff should be left to those that want to major in archeology or paleontology, where speculation is the order of the day.

They should emphasize the useful stuff like physics, thermodynamics, etc.

[Oztrich Boy]

but I still have problems with the questions as written.

The question asked whether you should teach scientific evidence both for and against, or only for. Naturally most people will want the "fair and balanced" view of teaching both for and against

Exactly. The questions were framed from a push pollster/lawyer mindset.

[PatrickHenry]

I have no problem with the concepts of micro-evolution where there is real science going on, but why bother with the dinosaur crap and all those ages and stuff when the average student is not going to be digging for dinosaurs or transitional species.

The average student will never be a surveyor, so why study geometry? The average student will never be an historian, so why teach history? I could go on with this list, but you get the picture. People are taught these things so they will know something of the world in which they will live, and so they will not be complete ignoramuses. For this reason, they are taught biology.

[Right Wing Professor]

Now you're grasping at straws. Many of these stories are fanciful and fun to read, but bear no resemblance to the world in which we live.

You mean, they have things like 6000 year old universes, talking serpents, women created from men's ribs, and boats that carrry every single living thing and many extinct ones?

If that's the world you live in, guy, well, my compliments to your supplier.

[Diddle E. Squat]

If Darwinism is correct, why on earth would you be afraid to have both sides presented? If Darwinism is correct, can't it stand on its own merits?

[Right Wing Professor]

Evidently this is meant to be some sort of insult directed at my family.
Par for the course.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I'll tell you what, neither of us will ever be able to convince the other, so let's just let life go on down the road and see what happens after we die. If Darwinism is able to save you, then I guess you'll have won.