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."
Pictures? (of the resulting offsping, not the act)
"Why do you have no faith in evolution specifically? What is it about the evidence for evolution that you don't find compelling? Be specific."
The specific reason I have no faith in evolution is that evolution IMHO is still a theory and has not been proven to my satisfaction.
I know you probably do not believe in heaven or hell or a Heavenly Father or Satan's existence, but I have more faith that those things exist than I could ever have faith that I evolved from CroMagnum.
I respect your beliefs, they are just not my beliefs. I know many good people who are just like you are with good morals and scruples that I would never try to convince them otherwise, simply because I myself cannot do it.
From your perspective thought, do you believe that there is intelligent life on other planets?
Not sure. I hope so. I love science fiction. We know too little about the chances of abiogenesis and the distribution of earthlike planets on those untold trillions of stars to make any more than a wild-assed guess. Inner planets tend to be the right size and G suns are fairly common. As another poster said the huge moon that we have may be a factor. How common is that? Hard to tell, but most moons are much smaller than ours in relation to their primary body. Then how many molecules are suitable to be a first replicator from which everything else can descend? We don't know. How likely is it for one to form in the most suitable conditions? We don't know. Lots of imponderables.
LOL. I think that my kids are the most beautiful in the world, but I don't really want to spam the thread with pictures of them. They are beautiful animals/chordates/vertebrates/synapsids/mammals/primates/apes/homsaps just like my wife and I.
The specific reason I have no faith in evolution is that evolution IMHO is still a theory and has not been proven to my satisfaction.
No scientific theory is ever proven. Merely supported by evidence, and evolution is supported by more evidence than any other scientific theory I am aware of. Nothing in science has a higher status than theory (many laymen believe that laws are more certain, which is incorrect, laws are no more certain than theories and they have no explanatory power, unlike theories which are the goal of science). For a number of explanations of what scientists mean when the use the word "theory" read the relevant links on my page, compiled by Patrick Henry.
Thank you for your politeness. I hope that I haven't been too rude.
Do you also subsribe to the "Big Bang" theory?
Carbon dating seems to be an accurate science as does DNA testing. We don't really know how old the world is.
Somthing that has always amazed me is the dinosaur fossils and now some are coming out with theories the age of the dinosaurs was ended by the earth flooding.
I believe that once we take our last breath in this existence we have yet another existence in another dimension not contained or affected by time - eternity.
You still have an open mind and that is a good thing. Your curiosity of life and the orignins have life have led you into many searches for the answers of the meanings of these things.
Man has meditated on them ever since he first up into the galaxies and asked himself "What is that?"
>> Man has meditated on (the galaxies) ever since he first LOOKED up into them and asked himself "What is that?"
Believe it or not; my brother, a close friend, and myself did have an ET encounter of the first kind. That was 35 years ago (good Lord!) and I still recall it vividly as if it were last night.
That experience is one of the reasons I as a Christian never shut anybody down for their respective views on science, creation, space travel and little things like that.
Thanks for a great conversation.
Yes, BB theory was used to predict the cosmic microwave background. Startling vindication.
Carbon dating seems to be an accurate science as does DNA testing. We don't really know how old the world is.
Carbon dating is only good to about 60k years so it is useless where the age of the earth is concerned. Several cross-correlating observations tell us that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. This age was converged on about 50 years ago by different measurement techniques. You may not know that, but I do. Other cross-correlating observations tell us that the universe is about 14 billion years old.
Somthing that has always amazed me is the dinosaur fossils and now some are coming out with theories the age of the dinosaurs was ended by the earth flooding.
I suspect the word there is "hypotheses" rather than "theories". I am unaware of any evidence that supports the idea that the dinosaur age was ended by a global flood. There is no evidence for a global flood in the geological column (and a global flood would leave lots of traces behind unless a deity "wiped" the evidence.
I believe that once we take our last breath in this existence we have yet another existence in another dimension not contained or affected by time - eternity.
Not impossible and a comforting thought for many. I do find the idea of a Lord Creator of the universe handing out nice or nasty places in eternity according to a behaviour-while-alive ticklist risible though.
You still have an open mind and that is a good thing. Your curiosity of life and the orignins have life have led you into many searches for the answers of the meanings of these things. Man has meditated on them ever since he first up into the galaxies and asked himself "What is that?"
Absolutely true. At one time almost every phenomenon was put down to the direct and personal intervention of whatever deity people believed in. Lightning strikes, floods, hurricanes, disease epidemics, famine. Now we know better, that if a deity exists that deity appears to have set up a universe with rules that doesn't require constant manipulation at His whim to confirm to His will.
Our investigations tell us that if a deity created the human race then His mechanism for that was a pre-plan that used evolution. The DNA evidence is absolutely convincing to those who trouble to study it, we have common ancestory with the other apes. Some reject that notion, just as some people initially rejected the idea that lightning is explicable via natural law (they refused to put lightning rods on churches at first because they didn't want to defy God. But they soon noticed that the church without a lightning rod would continue to get hit by "God's wrath" while the cathouse next door with a lightning rod would always be spared). From where I am standing the idea of special creation looks as quaint as the idea that God directly manipulates the weather.
"From where I am standing the idea of special creation looks as quaint as the idea that God directly manipulates the weather."
We will carry this (endless) conversation on another time. Until then, enjoy the Spring weather an oh, please do not get hit by lightning!
Your brilliant pool of knowledge on this subject is quite fascinating and you should debate openly, perhaps at a college.
Next to the working scientists that post on FR (and there a quite a few on PatrickHenry's pinglist) I know nothing. Just a college degree in engineering, and a lifelong interest in science. My knowledge is wider than most but shallow.
The problem with debating this stuff face to face (in front of a unscientifically trained audience) is that it only takes a couple of minutes to make 20 bogus claims (of the type that websites like DrDino is overloaded). To refute those claims takes potentially hours for each one, during which the audience has to be educated to understand concepts that are normally the province of science PhDs. Who is an audience going to believe? Than man with lots of 15 second soundbites that confirm their religious predispositions, or the man with lots of $20 words who has real difficulty getting his arguments across at a level that they can comprehend?
Science already debates all this stuff exhaustively, though evolution is supported by so much evidence and data and has suggested so many fruitful lines of enquiry that serious debate about whether it occurs ended about 120 years ago within the scientific community. The final nails were slammed into the coffin of scientific evolutionary resistance by the genomic evidence that has come in over the last ten years. There is still loads and loads of debate about precise mechanisms of evolution however.
No theory in science is ever proved. Take a look at these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with an east wind. (Psalm 48:7)
He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind. (Psalm 78:26)
For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. (Psalm 107:25)
He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. (Psalm 135:7)
He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow.(Psalm 147:18)
And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. (Isaiah 11:15)
Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will raise up against Babylon, and against them that dwell in the midst of them that rise up against me, a destroying wind; (Jeremiah 51:1)
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to consume it. (Ezekiel 13:13)
For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The Lord, The God of hosts, is his name. (Amos 4:13)
But the Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken. (Johah 1:4)
And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! (Matthew 8:23-27)
You've got that backward, if anything. There were extensive inland seas during most of the dinosaur era. I believe most of these had dried up near the end.
Cro-Magnon was anatomically modern. That is it was physically indistinguishable from men living today. (With a few provisos. For instance is was more robust on average, but that's to be expected in a cold-adapted European ice-age race.)
"God blew, and they were scattered"
Queen Elizabeth I on the destruction of the Spanish Armada by unseasonal storms.
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.