Who says that there's no proof of evolution?
Posted on 03/07/2006 2:34:37 PM PST by SirLinksalot
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 7, 2006 5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.
About 88 percent of Americans 18-29 years old were in support, along with 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independent voters.
Others who strongly support teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory include African-Americans (69 percent), 35-54 year-olds (70 percent) and Democrats (60 percent).
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn about such evidence," Luskin said.
The Discovery Institute noted Americans also support students learning about evidence for intelligent design alongside evolution in biology class – 77 percent.
Just over half – 51 percent – agree strongly with that. Only 19 percent disagree.
As WorldNetDaily reported, more than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution.
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
You may believe that if you wish, but the facts are 180 degrees opposed. I believe because it is the only thing that fits the evidence, and it fits all the evidence. DNA fits with the clear statements in the word that each reproduces according to it's own kind. The fossil and geologic evidence fit perfectly with the detailed description of the flood. The recently affirmed codes interlaced into the masoretic text prove that no mortal could have written a single word of the Old Testament, and that the true writer knew the future before there was any past. The statistical evidence in support thereof is the strongest that has ever supported any scientific experiment, by more than 30 orders of magnitude. It is the only science that will never fall.
Who says that there's no proof of evolution?
Read what is said, now what you wish had been said.
No it doesn't, and several working geologists have debunked that myth on this site over, and over again.
You said it, and God said it, you're on a roll
What lawsuits?
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968), we invalidated a statute that forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools; in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987), we invalidated a statute that required the teaching of creationism whenever evolution was also taught; today we permit a Court of Appeals to push the much beloved secular legend of the Monkey Trial one step further. We stand by in silence while a deeply divided Fifth Circuit bars a school district from even suggesting to students that other theories besides evolution— including, but not limited to, the Biblical theory of creation— are worthy of their consideration. I dissent. --- Scalia, TANGIPAHOA PARISH BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. HERB FREILER ET AL., 2000
Open your eyes Luis
Not according to my son's public high school Biology teacher. As of last month, science teachers in PUBLIC high schools are STILL (after the 30+ years it's been since I was in high school) teaching that most mutations are harmful.
This statement, which is virtually always labeled as a *creationist lie* was taught , and still is being taught as science. If this has indeed changed, then the responsibility for getting the correct information out rests squarely on the shoulders of the scientific community, and they have apparently dropped the ball. Creationists can't be the ones blamed for perpetuating this one.
Can you explain to me then how the sorting of microfossils supports the idea of a global flood?
Why would God care, for instance, if reptiles slowly evolved into birds? Why is that of any religious importance?
Yes. The point I am making considers truth to be extraneous. I am proposing that this situation is much like the Bush approval polls, it doesn't tell the whole truth.
This is *science*. The validity of the theories is all that matters.
Not for the pupose that I am discussing, the leanings of the survey respondents.
Are you disturbed by the original poster's putting up a title that says the opposite of what the poll and the article say?
In order to maintain a high level of credibility, I didn't read the article, only the headline. Therefore, I coud not be desturbed because I didn't know the difference. :-)
Read the word for yourself, this is not a Bible college by chat.
Not was the post original. It is basically taken from Postmodernist (Haha [sic]) Ken Wilber's writings.
No it doesn't, and several working geologists have debunked that myth on this site over, and over again.
I have also posted evidence from my own research which does not support a global flood between 4,000-5,000 years ago.
Short version: we don't need geology and fossils, that time period is illustrated perfectly in soils!
We can date Native American occupation in the western US using a variety of methods, and there is a continuous record of occupation, improving subsistence and settlement (except where hampered by climate change), fauna and flora, artifact styles, mtDNA, etc.
The reason we don't see posters refuting this data, other than "it can't be so because I believe otherwise" is that the creationist websites are all focused on the evil Darwinists with their fossils and geology.
Don't need no stinkin' fossils! The record of the soils is enough all by itself.
I'm not the one advocating belief in the unseen.
My eyes are wide open, thank you very much.
THERE YOU ARE!!!!
Am I a great straight man or what?
I have, very carefully, many times. Perhaps I'm stupid. Will you have pity on your fellow man and explain to me what is to you so apparently obvious?
Let me ask again. Why would changes in species negate God's plan?
Except that the physical leftovers are everywhere, you just have trained yourself not to see the evidence for them. Funny how that works, innit? You have willed yourself not to see the evidence, and then you start creating simplified erroneous logical constructions to bolster your worldview. It doesn't work that way.
Actually I am very solidly grounded in reality. Its the singularity of life folks that are out in spaceland.
As someone with a background in Astrophysics, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't quite appreciate just how long millions or billions of years REALLY is, and what happens in a billion years, or two billion, or three billion years. Educate yourself, PLEASE!
Which sorting, they sort in different orders in different poaces. To which do you ascribe, and why?
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.