Zogby Poll on Darwinism

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
AFJ
Coral
Coral
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Zogby Poll on Darwinism

Post by AFJ » Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:51 pm


Darby
Viper
Viper
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Darby » Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:14 pm

Whatever might qualify as "scientific evidence against it" is already being taught as the Modern Synthesis. There's nothing scientific in what the producers of the poll are hoping to interject into the classrooms.

AFJ
Coral
Coral
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Zogby Poll on Darwinism

Post by AFJ » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:34 pm

The poll only shows that it is the desire of many taxpaying Americans (at least the participants in the poll) to hear more than one side on this issue. Only teaching one scientific interpretation on origins without letting another scientific interpretation state it's case smack's of dogmatism.

No one says they want the Bible in the classroom in public school, but to censure any reference to the possibility of design, if one is to be completely objective, is at least indoctrination and may have the possibility of being an out an out lie.

User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:36 am

The poll is worded so that most people will clearly choose B. Science is a process of evidence and refutation - so of course the weaknesses of theory should be taught.

Certain people will interpret this as bipartisan support for teaching "alternatives" to evolution. What will those alternatives be?

Sure design should be addressed in textbooks. Here's what they should say:

"It is possible that the world and/or life in the world was designed by an unknown entity. There is, however, no proof for this - so it cannot be examined further in a scientific manner."

Maybe it could expand the thought a little more and say something like:

"Early philosophers and scientists couldn't help but notice similarities between objects that were created and some that were "natural." This led them to the hypothesis that there may have been a designer. Lacking any evidence to support their observation-based hypothesis, the scientific idea of design was put aside. Perhaps someday truly testable evidence will be found to support this archaic theory, but until then it will only exist as a novel idea - a failed hypothesis."

maybe "failed hypothesis" is too strong, but it sounded good so I left it in.

Anyway, do you see what I'm getting at? Teaching the weaknesses of evolution is NOT the same as teaching design or creation. The latter two are NOT scientific and do not belong in science textbooks.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

interrelation
Garter
Garter
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:06 am

Re:

Post by interrelation » Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:35 am

I think the alternate theory besides ToE is Interrelation Theory.
Last edited by canalon on Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removing huge irrelevant quotation of the post above.

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:38 am

I honestly believe that teaching the weaknesses of the evolutionary theory (there are probably some, like in any theory, though I don't know them) in high school would be a remarkably stupid thing. High school students don't know anything about the subject to begin with, it would nearly impossible for them to learn enough to understand the current problems. It's like teaching the weaknesses of string theory and the contradiction between quantum theory and gravitation in a high school physics class. Who the hell would understand anything from that?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: Zogby Poll on Darwinism

Post by robsabba » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:04 pm

AFJ wrote:Maybe we can decide for ourselves. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50607

Should "we" decide the best way to carry out heart by-pass surgery? Should "we" decide the best way to design a new passenger airplane? Or should "we" decide to let the experts handle these things?

User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re: Zogby Poll on Darwinism

Post by robsabba » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:09 pm

AFJ wrote:The poll only shows that it is the desire of many taxpaying Americans (at least the participants in the poll) to hear more than one side on this issue. Only teaching one scientific interpretation on origins without letting another scientific interpretation state it's case smack's of dogmatism.

The problem is that there is no other scientific interpretation. I.D. has failed to come up with an alternative theory to explain the origin of species, and most admit this. So where is the alternative you are refering to?

AFJ wrote:No one says they want the Bible in the classroom in public school, but to censure any reference to the possibility of design, if one is to be completely objective, is at least indoctrination and may have the possibility of being an out an out lie.

Again, I have to ask, where is this "design" theory? Where is it published? The Discovery Institute claims they don't have one... if you know of such a theory, please tell us.

gamila
Coral
Coral
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Post by gamila » Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:14 am

. I.D. has failed to come up with an alternative theory to explain the origin of species,


and natural selection cannot explain the origin of species as colin leslie dean has shown

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
because ns is


natural selection is -from this very site

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism


http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”



so even darwinism cannot account for the origin of species

User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by mith » Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:51 pm

lol someone needs to read up on definitions. Compare the ways certain terms are used by ID people and biologists and actually think about why they're disagreeing.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests