Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth

[dcsmart]

WASHINGTON — Two centuries after Charles Darwin's birth on Feb. 12, 1809 , people still argue passionately about his theory of evolution.

Was Darwin right? Should schoolchildren be exposed to contrary views in science class? These two controversies continue to rage, partly because both sides are evenly matched.

Most scientists and courts that have ruled on the matter say that overwhelming evidence backs Darwin's explanation of the origin and evolution of species, including humans, by natural selection.

Many people, especially religious and social conservatives, strongly disagree.

Among them are ``creationists,'' who take literally the Genesis story that God created the world and mankind in six days no more than 10,000 years ago. Others support ``intelligent design,'' the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without a supernatural ``designer," presumably God.

Public opinion surveys consistently have shown that Americans are deeply divided over evolution. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, in June 2007 , found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they believed in evolution and 48 percent said they didn't. Those percentages have stayed almost even for at least 25 years.

Gallup found a political angle to the split. Two-thirds of Republicans rejected Darwin's theory, while majorities of Democrats and political independents accepted it.

A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution.

The controversy is most acute in the public schools, where conservatives want evolution banished from science classes or at least described as ``a theory, not a fact.''

Darwin's supporters counter that to scientists a theory isn't just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence.
Text

FULL ARTICLE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090126/sc_mcclatchy/3153454

[anonymous171]

1. They should be exposed to a contrary views that at least have some scientific basis.

[Avalux]

3. There aren't any. n/t

[truth2power]

5. Thank. You. eom

[Enthusiast]

11. There are no contrary views that have merit.

If you believe that it is because you have bought into the misinformation campaign created by the Intelligent Design crowd. There is no scientific basis for these ID ideas. And there is no "controversy" about the validity of evolution as a theory.

[anonymous171]

14. I don't buy into their arguments. ID is not a scientific theory.

I was just saying that if a counter argument that was based in science existed, the children should be exposed to that.

[Enthusiast]

16. No one in the Intelligent Design-Creationism

community has submited a coherent hypothesis. They don't even have anything to argue other than to say "Evolution doesn't explain all this complexity." Well, that is no argument. They simply do not want children taught evolution because it doesn't fit into their narrow world view.

[Avalux]

2. The author of this article doesn't get it.

"Darwin's supporters counter that to scientists a theory isn't just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence."

Um - let's talk about facts, shall we? Who has the facts on their side in this debate?

There's a reason Darwin's theory of evolution has stood its ground for 150 years - because nothing better has been presented to disprove it. Magical thinking doesn't count and shouldn't be taught in science class. Period.

[HereSince1628]

4. This really tiresome game. It's like endless reruns of Cubs post-season play.

1-School board member(s) seek to assert authority to make decisions of curriculum content.

2-In the process religious views are suggested to augment or supplant evolutionary explanations in science curriculum.

3- Conflict arises about improper establishment of religious belief by a governmental body on the one hand and a battle about veracity of scientific understanding on the other.

4. Investigation reveals that the issue of religious advocates on school boards is a local/regional issue for local/regional voters. Establishment of approved religious beliefs in public school curriculum is an issue amenable for the court system, the veracity of science is not in the domain of either of these.

5. The silliness continues until either school board membership is restructured or a court strikes down an attempt to establish an approved religious belief in a public school system under the guise of science.

6. Issue arises again in different jurisdiction when other fringe types gain seats on school board--go to 1, But, on the way there notice 7.

7. The propagation of evolutionary understanding continues on happily outside the fray.

[struggle4progress]

6. " ... Americans' views on evolution vary depending on how questions are asked. In a previous Gallup

poll, people were asked to choose whether humans developed over millions of years, with or without guidance from God (as in one Gallup poll question). More selected evolution with guidance (38 percent) than without guidance (13 percent).

But in a previous Pew Research Center poll, respondents were first asked, without reference to a supreme being, if they thought humans evolved or were created in their present form. Those who accepted evolution were then asked if they thought it occurred through natural processes or with guidance. When asked this way, 18 percent reported that evolution occurred with guidance, and 25 percent accepted that it occurred through natural selection.

In the new FASEB poll, researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of 'all living things' and found that 61 percent accepted that 'all living things have evolved over time.' Of those, 36 percent thought all living things 'evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection,' and 25 percent thought 'a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating life in the form it exists today' ..."

History
Survey: 61 Percent Agree with Evolution
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 02 January 2008 11:57 am ET
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html

[struggle4progress]

7. Reading the Polls on Evolution and Creationism (Pew 2005)

September 28, 2005
Reading the Polls on Evolution and Creationism
Pew Research Center Pollwatch

... Consider for example the approaches taken by Pew and Gallup ... The two organizations find similar numbers in favor of a creationist position 42% for Pew, 45% for Gallup ­although each describes the concept in decidedly different terms. But Pew finds far more people believing in natural selection (26% vs. 13% for Gallup) while Gallup finds more subscribing to the view that God or a supreme being guided the evolutionary process (38% vs. 18% for Pew).

These differences result from the way the options are presented. Gallup asks respondents to choose among three views, two of which suggest a belief in God ("God created human beings pretty much in the present form" and "God guided process"), and one that rejects God's involvement altogether ("God had no part in this process"). It seems likely that for many respondents, agreeing with this last statement could imply a denial of belief in God. The resulting percentage choosing this option (13%) is about the size of the segment of the public that does not believe in God at all.

Pew's approach, on the other hand, asks people initially if they believe life "evolved over time" or existed in its "present form since the beginning of time"; the question makes no mention of God. Those who said that life evolved were then asked if life "evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection" or whether "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today." The Pew formulation provides a significantly more positive and inclusive description of the scientific position by characterizing natural selection as "a natural process" rather than something "God had no part in." This implicitly allows people who believe that God or a supreme being set the evolutionary process in motion, or even shaped it in some way, to still opt for "natural selection" as the main engine of evolution ...

<table>

A 1999 Fox News poll of registered voters offered respondents the explicit option to say that both Darwin's theory of evolution and the biblical account of creation were true: 26% said both were. Similarly, Pew's July 2005 poll found that about nearly three-in-ten of those who oppose the teaching of creationism nonetheless personally accept creationist accounts of life's origins, and 14% of those who accept natural selection favor teaching creationism instead of evolution ...

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118

[Moostache]

8. An experiment for those who doubt...

I posit the following:

Evolution is to Biology as Gravity is to Physics...not a "complete" description of all things yet a remarkably well tested macro-theory and one that is not in serious academic or scientific doubt.

Now I cordially invite all believers in "intelligent design" to live with the strength of their convictions. If evolution and ALL of the assorted biologists, geneticists, chemists and other disciplinary scientists who support the theory are irrevocably wrong, then it stands to reason that such fallacious reasoning would not be limited to the biological sciences...it would naturally extend into the other physical sciences as well. So, lets see some REAL belief already!

I want to watch pseudo-scientists refute gravity! Just start praying real hard and step off the top of the Empire State Building or jumping out of planes with no parachutes - hell, those crazy physicists are complete loons right?

I want to pay to watch them refute chemistry and anatomy! Start praying REAL hard and drink a few pints of Hydrochloric Acid - because we KNOW that chemists are almost as loony as the physicists, right?

I would say they could continue to challenge geologists, but that is just sad really to watch them torture logic in efforts to disregard ANY evidence of geology that punctures the 6,000 year old Earth mythology - cause really that was just Satan making it LOOK like things were old to test the faithful....

You wanna teach the controversy? I submit that anyone fool enough to try either of my examples will die a pretty painful or messy or both death in short order....now, prove me wrong and start a real controversey....

[pipi_k]

13. Oh my, they can't even agree on the perpetrator of the fraud...

I would say they could continue to challenge geologists, but that is just sad really to watch them torture logic in efforts to disregard ANY evidence of geology that punctures the 6,000 year old Earth mythology - cause really that was just Satan making it LOOK like things were old to test the faithful....


Some of them think it was Satan who did it.

I know people who think God was actually the practical jokester testing people's faith.



God and Satan...the original comedy duo...

[Soylent Brice]

9. ...

"A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution."

seriously?

no wonder the country is fucked up. it's run by and poulated by believers of santa and the tooth fairy.

forehead meet palm.

[dusmcj]

10. only in America, land of the benighted /nt

[Enthusiast]

12. The intelligent design bunch

are just like the Republican Party. They rely on misinformation to manipulate the citizens. They would have you believe that The Theory of Evolution is teetering on the brink of being discarded as invalid. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ToE has more evidence to support it than ever. There has never been a serious challenge to the central premise of descent with modification.

We should not allow polls to determine a public school's viable science curriculum.

[Faygo Kid]

15. There's never a day without a couple evolution threads at Freepland.

Entertaining as hell. Some of the posters actually back evolution sensibly and with good arguments. Then there's the rest. . .

[northernlights]

17. seriously, a war?

Let's see -- a well tested theory, with tons of supportive factual evidence...and more coming out every day thanks to dna technology.

Versus a belief with zero facts to support it.