Be prepared to see this bad poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute in all of their future efforts to undermine evolution education. Anyone want to wager on when we’ll see it for the first time here in Florida?
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.
Â
According to the report, which was commissioned by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, respondents were given the two following statements:
Â
Statement A: “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.â€
Â
Statement B: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.â€
Â
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.…
But Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), told CNSNews.com the poll was “meaningless†because the phrasing of the questions skewed the results.
Â
Branch said asking whether or not respondents believe all evidence should be taught puts them in the position of being for or against freedom of information.
Â
“(I)f you commission someone to do a poll asking whether we should teach the evidence for and the evidence against heliocentrism, they’d say yes, too,†he argued, “even though it’s scientifically established that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than the other way around.
Â
“The very terms of the question presuppose that there is credible scientific evidence against evolution, which there isn’t,†he said.
Luckily we have a science proponent in the white house.
Stacy, I shall restrain myself.
Evolution is being singled out from all of science for a very anthropocentric reason, one with a long history. That reason is religion. Despite being one of the most well-supported and documented Theories in all of science, it is also the most hated, as it contradicts the prominent religious idea that God intervenes / interacts in the daily affairs of people, and that people are literally wrought by the hand of God.
These well-funded veiled Creationists from the “Discovery Institute” are trying to slide their way into the education system based on technicalities in educational law, re-wording and watering down science standards. It’s all very disingenuous. Their philosophy has no place in the science classroom.
I take fundamental logical issue with their whole position:
The comparison of life to any “designed” object is hardly an appropriate comparison, or proof of a “designer.” Living, replicating, varying biological systems are entirely different set of circumstances. Firstly, the relative nature of any alleged ‘designer’ is always going to be anthropocentric. Design Theory, for the detection of manmade objects and structures, is employed to a large extent in archaeology and anthropology, and delineates characteristics only of man-made designs. How can anyone extrapolate this into some supposed “supernatural” designer, without making basic fundmental assumptions as to the activity / nature of this designer? Logically, without making basic philosophical assumptions, there are no boundaries, no parameters by which to distinguish “design” from “not design.” Already this feels distinctly like the interventionist “God” of the Abrahamic persuasion.
All we are left with is the same old incredulous “god of the gaps” argument for design. “It can’t happen, it’s too complex. Therefore it was designed.” Well, history routinely shows us that complexity is relative to what we know about our environment, our universe- how informed / inquisitive we are, and how closely we understand cumulative processes. People like Newton or Einstein are famous precisely for deciphering complexity, despite the phenomena of their interest being widely perceived as “too complicated.” Now their discoveries are accepted as natural laws, part of a larger coherent Theories of Physics. Bearing all of this in mind, at best, we can only say that Intelligent Design stifles thorough inquiry.
Furthermore, how do we distinguish “designed” from “undesigned” as necessarily implied by the alleged detection of design itself? Can the Discovery Institute illuminate this distinction, and please provide us with an example of a gene or biological mechanism that is unequivocally designed? To say “everything is designed” (which many proponents will try to do) is an illogical position seeing as one must first distinguish the parameters by which such specific detection is taking place. The whole approach is just one big logical mess.
Every single argument any brand of Creationist makes is inevitably founded in some misunderstanding, or lack of familiarity with correlated subtleties of other relevant scientific fields. Creationism in all it’s colors is both deficient and wily in defining contextually pivotal facets of it’s arguments (such as “design”), and ultimately the approach tells us nothing about nature or how the world works. Creationism, in effect, exists chiefly in opposition to science, and only to placate a strong monotheistic, interventionist religious belief seeded by Judeo-Christian thought.
We cannot permit these Creationists to introduce bad science, bad thinking, and their constant age-old anthropocentric and geocentric attitudes. It is not science.