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."
That would work if the environmental changes occurred slowly enough. If they were too rapid, as many of them were, the species would not have time to adapt but would die out instead. The more rapidly breeding ones would be most likely to survive, but not guaranteed to.
If the environment were stable for that length of time natural selection wouldn't happen then because there would be no *pressure* for a mutation to be selected out.
So all this presupposes the rate of environmental change to be favorable to accommodate the occurrence of enough random mutations so that some *favorable* ones would be selected out. Doesn't seem to be very probable, or very well supported.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Have you ever studied the effects of any recent local flood? It would either answer your questions or, more likely fill your trivia prone head with a thousand more.
You missed the point. The results of the experiment do not matter, since any result will be explained to fit the desired tree.
If you don't know what I am talking about or are incapable of providing a sensible answer, please say so.
I'm still waiting to hear how microfossils can be sorted so neatly in the chaotic waters of a flood. *twiddles thumbs*
Does equating evolution with religion make religion as strong as the science of evolution? Or make evolution as weak as religion?
How does equating evolution with religion, if you believe in a religion, make evolution worse than what you believe?
You said: No, changes do not occur. That is not science, but myth.
I ask you if you were a clone. Change is change, no matter how small, great or the method of change. Science observes change (evolution) as a fact. If anyone could prove change not a fact, it would not be considered by science. Science is not interested in religion because it is a faith and belief, not a fact. 6.7 billion people on the earth are all different and all but a few have noticed it.
Paging Nehemiah Scudder! Please pick up the white courtest phone.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid you're going to have to substantiate this by showing that the evolutionary tree is unreasonable on the face of it. Otherwise it just looks like you're faulting the scientists for being logical and consistent.
Bubba, baby, all solutions are biblical, or they are not solutions at all, but merely temporary illusions.
Archaeologists used to spout absurdities by the dozen until the records in Egypt were examined, and found to exactly match the Chronicles of the Israeli kings. Now they're quietly seeking another means of attack. It's always the same, and they never even acknowledge their error, because they are essentially dishonest.
No, you're the one who claimed that evolution is all about promoting some kind of lifestyle:
The question the evolutionists really need to answer is this: Which part of this wonderful lifestyle you're working so hard to protect do you think you're going to get to take with you?
What lifestyle am I living because of my acceptance of (and arguing here for) the ToE?
Do you have any research that backs up these assertions, or are you just wishing it were so?
Just a few thousand years ago there were ice sheets covering most of the US. Species don't just evolve to survive climate changes, they travel to Florida for the ice ages too.
The evidence doesn't matter to creationists. All of it will be twisted to fit the desired result.
Look up "Morton's Demon" sometime.
The Trotskiites were always claiming this back in the 1960s. Later the Postmoderndeconstructionists took it up. Now it's being seen of FreeRepublic.
Correcting the record with new discoveries is acknowledging the "error". Science never claims that it has the *final* answer. It only claims to be proceding forward with new knowledge.
Yes, during several field trips in grad school. Google "channeled scablands" to learn about the huge flood that washed through eastern Washington state at the end of the glacial episode (actually several times). Been there, studied that.
But have you ever studied the effects of such a flood, or is your learning all from books?
There are some very good websites on this subject (no, not the creation sites, the scientific ones).
The effects of these floods are quite visible (you can see them from space), well dated, and the direction and magnitude of water flow are pretty clear.
No global flood here. Sorry.
But, there is a lesson in what such a flood would look like, on a mini-scale. This is even more evidence that such a flood has not taken place on a global scale.
You keep challenging scientists over their data and studies. Don't you realize that scientists actually study things, and learn things? For years and decades? And that this knowledge adds up over the years by throwing out old theories and formulating better ones. And that somewhere, for every inane comment you make, there is an expert who can explain what science has found in that particular field? And that that expert really knows something, while you are just throwing out ideas based on your particular belief?
But I guess such is the "science" in creation science.
Evolution is a scientific theory, it belongs in the science classroom.
Creation is a religious belief, it belongs in Sunday school.
Evolution does not belong in Sunday school, and Creationism does not belong in the science classroom.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no organized groups seeking to force the discussion of evolution as an alternative to Creation during Sunday school, but there are organized groups seeking to force the discussion of Creation as an alternative to evolution in the science classroom.
What's wrong with each idea having its pulpit, free and independent of one another?
If people want their kids to discuss Creation in the classroom, then they should put them in a parochial school, and they should respect the rights of others to send their children to non-parochial schools.
No one should be ablt to force other people's kids to sit in a classroom and listen to a science teacher give his views on Creation.
I will start with the last statement. It is a red herring.
Your first statement ends in "And guess what, it does". Yes, and I showed the reason for that. You can explain anything with Darwinian logic. Again, the test for the ERV shows two possibilities, All or odd man out. The All outcome results in whatever tree you want. The odd man out outcome results in whatever tree you want. This experiment is complete verification of that.
Common has E+V Gorilla leaves has V loses E Chimp has V loses E Human has E loses V Voila! Tree one Different result? OK? Common has E+V Gorilla leaves has E loses V Chimp has E loses V Human has V loses E Voila! Same tree. Different result? OK Common has E+V Gorilla leaves has V loses E Chimp has E loses V Human has V loses E Voila! Same tree Etc.Your second statement is last. Smoking gun? That's kind of like drawing the bullseye around the arrow.
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.