Zogby poll on evolution is released

UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

[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.

[nmh]

Intelligent Design = God.

Redefining the beliefs of others is not flattering, even for you.

[nmh]

Intelligent Design = God.

Redefining the beliefs of others is not flattering, even for you.

I suppose you're now going to tell me, I can't believe that ... LOL!!!! THAT is what I and many others believe.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Intelligent Design = God."

Not according to the Discovery Institute and other proponents of ID. They say that the designer could be space aliens or emergent intelligence. Behe says the designer could even be dead and no longer designing. They are very careful to not say it is God. Are you saying they aren't being truthful?

[ThinkDifferent]

They say that the designer could be space aliens or emergent intelligence. Behe says the designer could even be dead and no longer designing. They are very careful to not say it is God. Are you saying they aren't being truthful?

Oh, this should be good...

[js1138]

Redefining the beliefs of others is not flattering, even for you.

I'm not doing the redefining. I'm just reporting what ID advocates testified to under oath. I've also seen the same thing said by numerous FReeper advocates of ID.

[Dark Knight]

If there are truly "fallcies" in evolution, perhaps you could document some of them.<<

Bad definitions good enough?

What is a species? What is a theory vs. fact? Why do evolutionists desire extremely LOOSE definitions of all three?

I won't bother to comment on the unquantifiable Darwinian "Black Box". That is just plain hilarious.

The above leads directly to the scientific consequence...evolution does not have any major applications. 150 years of a thought experiment. Eventually someone will start applying scientific standards to it, but in the meantime these threads will have to do.

DK

[Dimensio]

Bad definitions good enough?

No. Bad definitions can create ambiguity if their specific meaning in context is not clear, however a bad definition cannot itself falsify a concept.

What is a species? A species is a reproductively isolated population. Ambiguity in the definition of species is the result of attempting to draw rigid barriers on populations of organisms when the various organisms being classified into "species" became diverse through a gradual process. This in no way is problematic for the theory of evolution.

What is a theory vs. fact?

A theory is a general explanation of the cause behind observed phenomenon. A fact is a singular data point, typically derived from a single definition.

Why do evolutionists desire extremely LOOSE definitions of all three?

I see nothing "loose" about the definitions that I have provided.

I won't bother to comment on the unquantifiable Darwinian "Black Box".

If you believe that a point can be made from it, then you should. Otherwise, I fail to see that you have made a point.

The above leads directly to the scientific consequence...evolution does not have any major applications.

This is not true. In addition to understanding the history of life on earth, principles of the theory of evolution can be applied to real-world issues, including antibiotic research and agriculture.

150 years of a thought experiment.

It appears that you are unaware of the extensive evidence for the theory of evolution. It is far more than a "thought experiment".

Eventually someone will start applying scientific standards to it, but in the meantime these threads will have to do.

I do not see that scientific standards are not currently applied to evolution. If you have evidence to the contrary, I will listen.

[RunningWolf]

//extensive evidence for the theory of evolution//

This needs changed to //extensive evidence interpretation & speculation for the theory of evolution// for a for correct & realistic calibration of reality.

W

[Dark Knight]

Bad definitions good enough?

No. Bad definitions can create ambiguity if their specific meaning in context is not clear, however a bad definition cannot itself falsify a concept.<<

You're right. It won't falsify a concept, but does mean you literally don't KNOW what you are talking about. Epistemology hurts.


What is a species? A species is a reproductively isolated population. Ambiguity in the definition of species is the result of attempting to draw rigid barriers on populations of organisms when the various organisms being classified into "species" became diverse through a gradual process. This in no way is problematic for the theory of evolution.<<

Ambiguity in a definition is NEVER good for a scientific explanation. Ambiguity in a central definition in a theory is even worse for a theory.

Reproductive isolation depends on KNOWING isolation occurs. It is a much higher standard than biologists can apply in the real world. Either in bones from the past, or current species there is no island, continent, nor ocean that biologists can can claim with reasonable certainty is isolated. Life finds a way.

What is a theory vs. fact?

A theory is a general explanation of the cause behind observed phenomenon. A fact is a singular data point, typically derived from a single definition.<<

Evolutionist make the claim it is a theory and a fact. Bad definitions again. Crappy science.

Why do evolutionists desire extremely LOOSE definitions of all three?

I see nothing "loose" about the definitions that I have provided.<<

Precisely. See "Black Box" below and then reread your definition of theory.

I won't bother to comment on the unquantifiable Darwinian "Black Box".

If you believe that a point can be made from it, then you should. Otherwise, I fail to see that you have made a point.<<

The Black Box stuff avoids actually having to explain a phemonemon. By your own definitions, it defies being a theory. Crappy science.

This is not true. In addition to understanding the history of life on earth, principles of the theory of evolution can be applied to real-world issues, including antibiotic research and agriculture.<<

Evolutionists love to overstate the importance of the "theory/fact". Again, if you mean principles like "things change" and it is a "Black Box", that is hardly useful. What major applications depend on a ToE in either antibiotic research or agriculure? Or is it good geneticists doing their work in specific, articulable, and scientfic ways with Evolutionists highjacking the credit?

I do not see that scientific standards are not currently applied to evolution. If you have evidence to the contrary, I will listen.<<

Evolution is political science.


DK

[Dimensio]

You're right. It won't falsify a concept, but does mean you literally don't KNOW what you are talking about. Epistemology hurts.

This is not always the case. It may simply be a lack of communication, where the speaker understand what they mean, but they are unsuccessful in communicating the ideas to others.

Ambiguity in a definition is NEVER good for a scientific explanation.

In this case the ambiguity is simply a consequence of biology not conforming to rigid standards, which is a result of evolution. However, even in the rare cases where "species" becomes ambiguous, there are still means of making distinctions, such as what occurs with "ring species".

Ambiguity in a central definition in a theory is even worse for a theory.

True, however there is no ambiguity in a "central definition" in the theory of evolution.

Reproductive isolation depends on KNOWING isolation occurs.

I do not understand what point you are trying to make. There are known instances of reproductive isolation.

It is a much higher standard than biologists can apply in the real world.

Could you substantiate this assertion?

Either in bones from the past, or current species there is no island, continent, nor ocean that biologists can can claim with reasonable certainty is isolated. Life finds a way.

You are suggesting that a concept in science is not known with complete certainty. This is a meaningless statement, however, because it is true of all concepts in science.

Evolutionist make the claim it is a theory and a fact. Bad definitions again. Crappy science.

Again, this is not a failing of the theory, but rather a failing of those who make the statement without further qualifying it. Evolution as a "fact" refers to the observed events of alelle frequency changes over time. Evolution as a "theory" refers to the body of knowledge explaining common descent of all existing species from common ancestry.

Precisely. See "Black Box" below and then reread your definition of theory.

Very well.

The Black Box stuff avoids actually having to explain a phemonemon. By your own definitions, it defies being a theory. Crappy science.

Evolutionists love to overstate the importance of the "theory/fact".

How do you mean?

Again, if you mean principles like "things change" and it is a "Black Box", that is hardly useful.

I do not understand what you mean by those two phrases, especially "Black Box".

What major applications depend on a ToE in either antibiotic research or agriculure?

Understanding evolution of bacteria is very important for doctors working with antibiotics. The implications for agriculture can be employed to apply specific reproductive pressures to encourage the emergence of traits in the majority of a population of a specific crop.

Or is it good geneticists doing their work in specific, articulable, and scientfic ways with Evolutionists highjacking the credit?

If you believe that any credit is being "hijacked", I would ask you to provide specific examples.

Evolution is political science.

This is an assertion, not an example.

[Boiler Plate]

Devine intervention is incompatible with the characteristics of scientific theory, the only kind of theory currently taught in science class.

And Evolution has a certain problem with the 2nd law of thermaodynamics.

[Dimensio]

And Evolution has a certain problem with the 2nd law of thermaodynamics.

What "problem" does evolution have?

[elfman2]

"And Evolution has a certain problem with the 2nd law of thermaodynamics."

Apparently not

[Dark Knight]

A ToE does NOT have a problem with 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The sun provides more than enough energy to drive a process.

Sorry.

DK

[Greg o the Navy]

We must keep our eyes on the prize: out with Darwinism, in with Creationism. If this means adopting an incrementalist approach (i.e., Intelligent Design,) so be it. However it would be nice if GWB would step up on this issue. My vote and that of others in my church WAS predicated on getting satisfaction on this issue and on abortion. Six years later it seems like we've received little more than lip service for our grassroots efforts.

[Dimensio]

We must keep our eyes on the prize: out with Darwinism, in with Creationism. If this means adopting an incrementalist approach (i.e., Intelligent Design,) so be it.

I am curious. When you say this, are you saying that those who claim that there is no religious implication behind Intelligent Design when defending its inclusion in public school science courses are lying?

[Greg o the Navy]

Most certainly not, and if that's the way my posting struck you then you have my apologies.

People choose their issues for their own honest and well-meaning reasons. In my case, and I know that other Believers share my view, if ID is the tack that finally purges Darwin from the schools ... I'm all for it.

[OriginalIntent]

The Government Schools, run by the leftist NEA (union) need to be closed. There would be no more argument and finger pointing about motives.

No more, "you can't mention the possibility of a designer" when discussing origins.

Some people know that the Government Schools are used to indoctrinate and they cherish this default monopolistic power.

[Dimensio]

In my case, and I know that other Believers share my view, if ID is the tack that finally purges Darwin from the schools ... I'm all for it.

So you are saying that you do not promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because you believe it to be valid science, but because you wish to displace a valid scientific theory?

[cowdog77]

Professing your self to be wise, you appear a fool.