Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Zogby poll on evolution is released
UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

Posted on 03/07/2006 5:06:11 PM PST by Greg o the Navy

SEATTLE, March 7 (UPI) -- A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; culturewar; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; poll; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-218 next last
To: Greg o the Navy

"I promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because it conveys essential elements of the Creation Story. It will plant the seeds that will ultimately drive the secular agenda -- which is anchored in Darwinism -- out of the public schools."

Tell that to the major ID proponents, who say that ID has absolutely nothing to do with God or religion.

"As to Darwinism being "valid science," I don't accept that. Never have. It's humanist cock & bull."

I am sure you can back that up with... something. :)


141 posted on 03/09/2006 6:52:22 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

Can they replicate? Do they encode inforamtion and pass it on to future generations? Or do they in the absence of light return to their original state?


142 posted on 03/09/2006 6:52:29 PM PST by Boiler Plate (Mom also said why be difficult when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate

>>Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.

To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.

Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.

Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.<<

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html

I have many disagreements with ToEs. This one is so trivial and SETTLED.

Read more, not less.

DK


143 posted on 03/09/2006 7:02:56 PM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy
I promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because it conveys essential elements of the Creation Story.

However, this does not answer my question. Are you saying that the truth value of Intelligent Design is not a consideration?

As to Darwinism being "valid science," I don't accept that. Never have. It's humanist cock & bull.

Can you please justify this claim? What makes the theory of evolution (note that "Darwnisim" is not a branch of science, the correct term is the study of evolution) "humanist cock & bull" and not valid science?
144 posted on 03/09/2006 7:39:09 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy

This conflict has nothing to do with science. The unadorned reason for the war against Intelligent Design in favor of Darwin's theory is to deny the existence of God. I wish the issue was so defined.


145 posted on 03/09/2006 7:53:52 PM PST by Dionysius (ACLU is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius
"The unadorned reason for the war against Intelligent Design in favor of Darwin's theory is to deny the existence of God. I wish the issue was so defined."

That's odd. The main proponents of ID have said repeatedly that the designer of ID is not the God of the bible and ID is not about religion. Were they lying? I'd be very disappointed if that were so.
146 posted on 03/09/2006 7:58:01 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius
The unadorned reason for the war against Intelligent Design in favor of Darwin's theory is to deny the existence of God.

Who is denying the existence of any deities?
147 posted on 03/09/2006 8:01:56 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate
"Having said that, if science cannot prove God doesn't exist then it must contemplate that he might. "

Science can’t disprove and infinite number of things that are not its responsibility to teach. But again, that sounds like an excellent subject for a philosophy class, no more appropriate for Science than for Math or Spanish or Tennis class.

If our adolescents were compelled to go to Purdue where you encountered evangelical excesses, I’d be more concerned, but wouldn’t conclude that two wrongs make a right.

Teaching non-science in science is like marrying homosexuals. It potentially allows anything in, blurring its methods through lack of standards and corrupting its results.

Best Regards, Bill

148 posted on 03/09/2006 8:49:14 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Evangelical excess!!! You can not be that paranoid, can you? What in the world are afraid of? That people may start to question the sanctity of evolution?

Maybe your right, evolution should be in philosophy classes. Hmmm, come to think of it, it already is.
149 posted on 03/09/2006 9:04:46 PM PST by Boiler Plate (Mom also said why be difficult when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Dionysius
Just what is a deity to you and how would its existence be confirmed in your mind?

Also, none of these people use the term deity. Why must you always replace their words?
And why must you twist the persons words. They never use the term deity, and yet you must always replace their words with your words, words you can use to debase them with.

It is an inferential-indirect method that leaves you an easy side door out should you be caught in the act.

BTW it is very transparent believe it or not. It wins no arguments, advances your cause naught, demonstrates no superior cognitive functioning, no higher IQ. Really it is kind of pathetic. Other elements are also revealed, but that is for another place.

Wolf
150 posted on 03/09/2006 9:17:18 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius; Greg o the Navy
//Darwin's theory is to deny the existence of God//

This is true of its followers for the most part if not for theory itself, although thats what it looks like to most objective observers.

As you say this part is now cloaked to a degree. Once they feel they are turning the tide, this part will become unadorned again as you say.

Wolf
151 posted on 03/09/2006 9:25:41 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

All scientific theories are "unproven".




That should be the end of this discussion then.


152 posted on 03/09/2006 9:31:36 PM PST by WKB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy
A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.

I'll gladly advocate "intelligent design" theories being taught in school just as soon as it actually *has* a theory. To date, it doesn't (even after 3000+ years of trying), and I doubt it ever will.

And if anyone wants to try to suggest one, keep in mind that in order to be a "theory" in the epistemological sense (and not the vernacular sense as in "notion" or "guess"), an explanation has to meet several specific criteria. And "intelligent design" currently fails those on all counts.

Additionally, I'm just *dying* to hear someone expound what, exactly, an "intelligent design" curriculum would consist of. Take away the misguided evolution-bashing, the fallacious arguments, and the outright misrepresentations, and there just isn't much left to *teach* about "ID", other than, "well, some people think that some deity or unknown aliens might have had some involvement somewhere at some time for some unspecified reasons in the history of life... also... um... okay, let's break for lunch, shall we?"

153 posted on 03/09/2006 9:36:00 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Greg o the Navy

Ping me if he ever steps up to the plate and attempts to honestly answer those questions.


154 posted on 03/09/2006 9:37:57 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Boiler Plate
"What in the world are afraid of? That people may start to question the sanctity of evolution?"

I think that when science is bent to compare unscientific assertions it’s as debilitating as when it’s politicized by anti-capitalist masquerading as ecologists. I don’t care who believes in evolution or how aggressively it’s criticized, as long as it’s not misrepresented.

155 posted on 03/09/2006 9:39:51 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Greg o the Navy; Dimensio
Well ping me then if Dim ever steps up to the plate and attempts to honestly answer some questions that I have asked.

So far, I am looking at a .005 batting record for Dim and answering something directly and honestly and on its face.

Wolf
156 posted on 03/09/2006 9:45:40 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Greg o the Navy; Dimensio; CarolinaGuitarman
I promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because it conveys essential elements of the Creation Story. It will plant the seeds that will ultimately drive the secular agenda -- which is anchored in Darwinism -- out of the public schools.

Well, at least we have *one* honest anti-evolutionist. The rest keep denying that they're following the propaganda strategy of The Wedge Document.

But haven't you heard? The "intelligent design" folks keep swearing that it's *not* about religion, and in fact the "designer" might well be aliens, and besides, it would be good to teach students that the designer could be dead. I guess you missed the memo.

As to Darwinism being "valid science," I don't accept that. Never have.

Really? Then how do you explain the vast amounts of evidence and research along multiple independent cross-conforming lines which have repeatedly validated "Darwinism"? Mere coincidence, you think? Or is God trying to fake us out?

It's humanist cock & bull.

Then why are the *majority* of American evolutionists *Christians*? I think something is wrong with your cartoonish conspiracy theory. And how do you explain your presumption in light of these folks?

The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

[As of 29 January 2006, there are 10,230 signatures collected to date]

Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter

A to E  - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z

Listing by States

But hey, I guess *you* know better than 10,000+ Christian clergy, eh?
157 posted on 03/09/2006 9:56:17 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Dimensio; Greg o the Navy
Well ping me then if Dim ever steps up to the plate and attempts to honestly answer some questions that I have asked.

Whenever I've seen you ask him a question, I've seen him answer it.

So far, I am looking at a .005 batting record for Dim and answering something directly and honestly and on its face.

I challenge you to support this claim, or retract it. Can you do so? There's a question for *you*, son. Keep in mind that in order to support your amazing claim, you must have asked him at *least* 200 questions so far, with him answering only one. If on the other hand I can find, say, five questions from you that he has answered, then you must document 995 questions you have actually asked him which he has not answered.

So go right ahead and document that amazing claim, or else be recognized as someone who dishonestly issues false slanders -- like so many other of your anti-evolution comrades.

158 posted on 03/09/2006 10:00:10 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: WKB; Dimensio
[All scientific theories are "unproven".]

That should be the end of this discussion then.

Only for the extremely simple-minded, who fail to grasp the meaning of Dimensio's next sentence (which you have snipped out in order to distort the meaning of his response): "This does not mean that all unproven speculation rises to the level of 'theory'".

Clue for the clueless: The fact that nothing can be "proved" in this real world due to epistemological constraints does *not* mean that there are not *other* methods to validate knowledge and to distinguish valid explanations from invalid ones.

This has been understood starting from around the 1600's. Some day I hope the anti-evolutionists will manage to progress beyond a sixteenth-century worldview.

159 posted on 03/09/2006 10:05:12 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
I think that when science is bent to compare unscientific assertions it’s as debilitating as when it’s politicized by anti-capitalist masquerading as ecologists. I don’t care who believes in evolution or how aggressively it’s criticized, as long as it’s not misrepresented.


EM2,
Ok you lost me there. I used to build nuclear power plants so I doubt I hang with these evil doers. Do you have any specific cases in mind?

Honestly you are trying to split hairs just to get your way. Evolution simply is not very scientific outside of the concept that God doesn't exist. What you are wanting is education in a vacuum.

The fact that God exists, does not impede science and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. To say science must be taught without acknowledging that there is God is like walking around with your eyes shut because you don't want to see the alternate paths to your destination.

Well it's time to go to bed. Sweet dreams.

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
160 posted on 03/09/2006 10:11:58 PM PST by Boiler Plate (Mom always said why be difficult when with just a little more effort you can be impossible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-218 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson