Zogby Poll: Most Americans Want Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinism Taught In Schoo

[Revmitchell]

A Zogby poll commissioned by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says more than three-quarters of Americans would like teachers to have the freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, with an even higher number reported among Democrats.

According to the report, which was commissioned by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, respondents were given the two following statements:

Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.”

Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”

Of those surveyed, 78 percent said Statement B came closest to their own point of view on the issue, representing a 9 percent increase over 2006, the last time the question was asked.

More Here

 

[Revmitchell]

What is real interesting is found further in the article:

Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture, said the findings contradict the prevailing notion that “a small group of the uneducated” – as critics charge -- drove skepticism over Darwin’s theory.

“Media reports insinuate that a right-wing conspiracy of know-nothings and religious-extremists is afoot,” he said. “But the new Zogby poll represents a broad-based and well-informed public consensus for academic freedom on evolution. The Darwin lobby has isolated itself from public opinion.”

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Science is not a popularity contest. Maybe Alchemy should be taught alongside Chemistry as an alternate viewpoint. Or maybe the stork theory of reproduction.

 

[matt wade]

Science is not a popularity contest.

You are living in a dream world. The world of science is just as much influenced by politics and "popularity contests" as every other facet of life. If you honestly believe that the "best science" always come to the top by its own merit, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[just-want-peace]

Science is not a popularity contest. Maybe Alchemy should be taught alongside Chemistry as an alternate viewpoint. Or maybe the stork theory of reproduction.

This from one who voted for the "0" and actually believes his campaign promises.

 

[windcatcher]

Science is not a popularity contest. Maybe Alchemy should be taught alongside Chemistry as an alternate viewpoint. Or maybe the stork theory of reproduction.

You miss the whole point. In you attempt to appear intellectually superior you made an ... of your self (the word has 3 letters).

The theory of evolution, specifically Darwin's theory, if taught, should be taught objectively...... which means teaching the problems with it. If science is not objective..... it really isn't science. Last time I knew.... a point of science proven wasn't called theory or a hypothesis.... it was called an axiom or law...or some similar term. Darwin's evolution which is called 'a theory' is still just that.... and remains unproven. To teach otherwise is false science.

True, science is not up to polls..... but the content taught in the schools to students..... particularly the quality and accuracy of content is of interest to parents who expect the schools to be developing the intellect.... not dumbing it down.

Pity that the snobbish elitists educators who think their accademics (not all are of this ilk) makes them a superior judge to teach kids what THEY think is best and ignore true education and the parents wishes. You're right! Their influence in numbers and snobbish appeal politically should have NO bearing on the way science is taught if they are not teaching science objectively.

 

[targus]

Science is not a popularity contest. Maybe Alchemy should be taught alongside Chemistry as an alternate viewpoint. Or maybe the stork theory of reproduction.

So then you are saying that only scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught and that scientific evidence against it should be withheld?

 

[Alcott]

Science is not a popularity contest. Maybe Alchemy should be taught alongside Chemistry as an alternate viewpoint.

That's how I learned about alchemy and alchemists-- in public school.

Or maybe the stork theory of reproduction.

Well, if it's good enough to sell pickles,.....

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You miss the whole point. In you attempt to appear intellectually superior you made an ... of your self (the word has 3 letters).

Talk about missing the point! I was not trying to be intellectually superior, so you are wrong from the get go. And we can do without the personal attacks and stick to facts.

The theory of evolution, specifically Darwin's theory, if taught, should be taught objectively...... which means teaching the problems with it. If science is not objective..... it really isn't science. Last time I knew.... a point of science proven wasn't called theory or a hypothesis.... it was called an axiom or law...or some similar term. Darwin's evolution which is called 'a theory' is still just that.... and remains unproven. To teach otherwise is false science.

Your errors here are:
1) Evolutionary theory has progressed a lot from Darwin's day.
2) No scientific theory is ever final. New evidence can change it. At current, there are minor quibbles in the scientific community, and they should not be supressed...I never stated they should. However the main basis of the theory is accepted as sound. The only "problems" with it is in the mind of fundamentalists.
3) Theory and hypothesis are two different things. A theory, as used in science, is NOT a guess, and idea or an hypothesis. It is a model that is soundly supported by the facts and observations, either directly or by inferential observation.

True, science is not up to polls..... but the content taught in the schools to students..... particularly the quality and accuracy of content is of interest to parents who expect the schools to be developing the intellect.... not dumbing it down.

Which is why we should not reject scientific ideas based on someone's religious dogma.

Pity that the snobbish elitists educators who think their accademics (sic) (not all are of this ilk) makes them a superior judge to teach kids what THEY think is best and ignore true education and the parents wishes. You're right! Their influence in numbers and snobbish appeal politically should have NO bearing on the way science is taught if they are not teaching science objectively.

Elitism? Who said anything about that. It is only a rhetorical device which those with erroneous information use to denigrate those who have studied any particular discipline that conflicts with their preconceived conclusions.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That's how I learned about alchemy and alchemists-- in public school.

True, but I am betting it was in an historical context...not as current science. If not, were you successful in turning lead into gold?

Well, if it's good enough to sell pickles,.....

No argument there! :thumbsup:

 

[billwald]

And the scientific arguments against Darwin's theory are?

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) Evolutionary theory has progressed a lot from Darwin's day.

Yes, but it has still has major flaws.

2) No scientific theory is ever final. New evidence can change it.

So why not teach that evidence? Why suppress it? Isn't that the issue? People are trying to suppress alternative viewpoints.

The only "problems" with it is in the mind of fundamentalists.

So you think people like Behe and Johnson are "fundamentalists"? Ben Stein? That's crazy. Evolution is being questioned by many people who aren't fundamentalists.

Which is why we should not reject scientific ideas based on someone's religious dogma.

But that's exactly what you are trying to do. You are rejecting sound science based on religious dogma.

Elitism? Who said anything about that. It is only a rhetorical device which those with erroneous information use to denigrate those who have studied any particular discipline that conflicts with their preconceived conclusions.

So can someone disagree with evolution without being attacked for being unscientific and "fundamentalist"?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Is it science to say the missing link when the WHOLE CHAIN is missing?? Science of Darwin is more like science fiction. God takes it serious for those who suppress the truth and call Him a liar.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

And the scientific arguments against Darwin's theory are?

Too numerous to mention, and not worth discussing with a closed mind.

 

[windcatcher]

Talk about missing the point! I was not trying to be intellectually superior, so you are wrong from the get go. And we can do without the personal attacks and stick to facts.

[I'm sorry I said that. I am a little peeved with you.... as your comment injected a fantasy into a serious discussion]

Your errors here are:
1) Evolutionary theory has progressed a lot from Darwin's day.
2) No scientific theory is ever final. New evidence can change it. At current, there are minor quibbles in the scientific community, and they should not be supressed...I never stated they should. However the main basis of the theory is accepted as sound. The only "problems" with it is in the mind of fundamentalists.
3) Theory and hypothesis are two different things. A theory, as used in science, is NOT a guess, and idea or an hypothesis. It is a model that is soundly supported by the facts and observations, either directly or by inferential observation.

Which is why we should not reject scientific ideas based on someone's religious dogma.

[No one is saying to toss out theories..... so where do you get that idea? At the same time, a review of current text books or listening to teachers instructions and one will find errors being taught as fact which have already been debunked by the very group which holds to Darwinism and evolution. HERE'S A SERMON PREACHED ON EVOLUTION'S HOAXES
HERE'S A LIST OF EVOLUNTIONARY HOAXES

face book even has an article

Here's a site devoted to deceit in the evoluntion story

and here is a more thoughtful and scolarly approach which includes some criticisms within the camp of evolutionsist
When lies are taught as though they are facts.... that is not science!

But perhaps you have a different idea of what is science? ]

Elitism? Who said anything about that. It is only a rhetorical device which those with erroneous information use to denigrate those who have studied any particular discipline that conflicts with their preconceived conclusions.

The 'elitist' are those who organize and set themselves up as experts on the subject and censor or control discussion and outcomes. The 'elitist' are those who know there are problems and there are lies but allow little to come to the light of day in the introductory discussions meant for public education or consumption by the general populace. The elitists are those who oust other very reputable scientist who either are creationist or are evolutionist but work to expose the frauds and problems in evolution, removing them from postitions in accademia and scientific research. Why? Because of NO TOLERANCE for questions in the scientific inquiry.

The 'elitists are those who have a deciding influence and veto into what is being taught..... and those who already know the problem of errors in the history of their work..... but yet do little in the schoolastic arena to correct the situation. They know that if they succeed in getting the young and impressionable to believe in evolution... they have a decided advantage over what they will believe in the future...including the very attitudes which will drive their own ethics and determine the value they place on human life as uniquely apart from other life forms. If parents are wanting the truth to be taught and the evolutionist keep the text books and lectures and tests with the lies in them...... then you say its a popularity poll because the parents want their children to know the truth?

Give me a break!

 

[LadyEagle]

MODERATOR NOTE: The Scriptural view is that GOD created the world and all that is in it. A view that promotes any idea opposed to Scripture is clearly in violation of posting rule #2. The idea that GOD is not the Creator comes from the father of lies.

In addition, topics and/or posts that seek to promote clearly unscriptural and controversial social and moral positions.....are prohibited as well.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MODERATOR NOTE: The Scriptural view is that GOD created the world and all that is in it. A view that promotes any idea opposed to Scripture is clearly in violation of posting rule #2. The idea that GOD is not the Creator comes from the father of lies.

I don't believe anyone on this thread has said God is not the creator.

 

[Pastor Larry]

MP, why don't you respond to the questions I asked you above?

 

[saturneptune]

If I had never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ, or never been to a science class, anyone with half sense can see this was put together by a Creator. It takes a real idiot to think this just started from nothing and evolved. It makes me think their brains evolved from a hat rack.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Which is why we should not reject scientific ideas based on someone's religious dogma.

So Jesus "the creator" is religious dogma?