Posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
More adults in the United States believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 51 per cent of respondents think that humans and other living things evolved over time, while 42 per cent say they existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Charles Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" was first published in 1859. The book details the British naturalist’s theory that all organisms gradually evolve through the process of natural selection. Darwin’s views were antagonistic to creationism, the belief that a more powerful being or a deity created life.
In the United States, the debate on the topic accelerated after the 1925 Scopes trial, which tested a law that banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. In 2004, Georgia’s Cobb County was at the centre of a controversy on whether science textbooks that explain evolutionary theory should include disclaimer stickers.
The theory of intelligent design suggests certain biological mechanisms are too complex to have developed without the involvement of a powerful force or intelligent being.
Last month, Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the two views are not necessarily incompatible, declaring, "There is no conflict between science and religion, but a debate between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation. (...) The possibility that the Creator used evolution as a tool is completely acceptable for the Catholic faith."
Polling Data
Some people think that humans and other living things evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?
|
|
||
|
Jul. 2006 |
Jul. 2005 |
|
|
Evolved over time |
51% |
48% |
|
Existed in their present form |
42% |
42% |
|
Don’t know / Refused |
7% |
10% |
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Methodology: Telephone interviews with 2,003 American adults, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
You didn't understand a thing I wrote. Oh well, I tried.
There is controversy in life, or all these CREVO threads wouldn't have thousands of posts. I don't live life in little bubbles and neither do kids (OK are we in the "Science" bubble or the "Religion" bubble?). All this is very appropriate for school classroom discussion, IMHO.
It's not a foriegn concept, they did it when I was in school.
even with constant indoctrination from government schools and the MSM, almost half don't buy Darwinistic pseudoscience.
You give normal nuts normalacy. You make really nutjobs look sane. Everything you say is nuts. The people who listen to you have their IQ reduced by 30 points.
Your sayings make the world nuts. Your ideas subtract from the world's IQ. Everytime you open your mouth you subtract from the human race.
Then again, you are a liberal.
Wow! So tell me what you really think (but one big mistake, I'm not a liberal!).
Othewise, that's actually not a bad piece of creative writing.
But, for a real exposition of creative writing, try this on for size: The Flame to End All Flames.
I understood it just fine. I don't even disagree with your conclusions on the theories. I just think kids would benefit from having the whole issue presented to them so when they make one assessment or another, it's an informed, not a filtered conclusion.
Huh?
How did reproduction "evolve"?
Hint: It didn't.
But not in science classes! Don't you see that science classes should be for science?
Classes in philosophy or other subjects may be appropriate for inclusion of this debate, but science is limited to fields which can produce scientific evidence.
"I still don't want to see creationism and ID in high school science classes. To keep with the time frame, those subjects would have to be discussed and dismissed as science in only a few hours."
I've recently began considering the possibility of witholding any instruction regarding Darwinian evolution--by-random-mutation to students before they have a firm understanding of stochastic processes. After all, we do not teach American Lit before Phonics, or Algebra before Arithmetic - indeed, teachers frown upon more advanced students trying to expose their fellow students to more advanced ideas when they don't yet understand the basics, or did when I was in grade school.
If Creationism is to be critically evaluated in high-school biology (concerning which I remain neutral, as my future children will NOT be attending public school), why are children taught Darwinism without being given the quantitative ability to critically evaluate the merits of Darwinism on their own?
If your comment suggests a stronger grounding in the scientific method, I certainly agree.
I understood it just fine. I don't even disagree with your conclusions on the theories. I just think kids would benefit from having the whole issue presented to them so when they make one assessment or another, it's an informed, not a filtered conclusion.
So you think it should be left up to kids to decide on what? Just this? Or everything? Or some set of things you've decided on? Should kids be told the facts and then be left to decide on their own what to eat and when to go to bed and what to watch on TV? So we should just present them with our reasoning and then let them decide? At what age would you start taking this approach?
BTW, this approach sounds eerily similar to what a lot of DIMS advocate. How does your approach differ from theirs?
Well, if I were teaching, I guess I'd be constantly trying to pop my little assigned bubble then! I'd just title the class 'Origins' then so I could discuss both, because it's all interrelated.
Any discussion of evolution must be open to a very philosophical and theoretical discussion, IMHO. It ain't memorizing Periodic tables and drawing stipple Amoebas.
What a shallow, irrational attempt at condescension! Teaching kids the ability to reason and letting them come to their own conclusion ~is~ the best thing we could teach them, IMHO... Much more valuable than just having them memorize ~your~ point of view.
BTW, this approach sounds eerily similar to what a lot of DIMS advocate. How does your approach differ from theirs?
I think they cringe and break into a sweat if someone mentions God... I don't.
there you go again with the "non-science"....
there you go again with the "non-science"....
Aldous Huxley High?
If Kerry had won the election with that percentage, it would have been a landslide so, yeah, I guess the media would consider that *most*.
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.