64% of Americans want Creationism taught in school

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

What gets me is that even secular citizens have fallen for the "it's only fair to teach both sides" argument. We've got some educatin' to do.

 

Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

 

The New York Times

 

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: August 31, 2005

 

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

 

Divided Over Evolution

 

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

 

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

 

The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

 

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

 

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.

 

Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument."

 

"In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do have American culture on their side."

 

This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.

 

President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

 

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.

 

Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.

 

The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.

 

More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain" of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).

 

The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most of these questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents, and the margin of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers said.

 

The public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.

 

Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said: "I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's very successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the Democrats not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some of the more visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have reinforced that image of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the Democratic Party, there's a large religious constituency there."

 

Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent).

 

On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to provide social services. But support for such financing declined from 75 percent in early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based initiative.

 

On gay men and lesbians in the military, 58 percent of those polled said they should be allowed to serve openly, a modest increase from 1994, when 52 percent agreed. Strong opposition has fallen in that time, to 15 percent from 26 percent in 1994.

 

What gets me is that even secular citizens have fallen for the "it's only fair to teach both sides" argument. We've got some educatin' to do.

[Checkmate]

What gets me is that even secular citizens have fallen for the "it's only fair to teach both sides" argument. We've got some educatin' to do.

Funny. Some time ago, when the Creationists ruled the education airwaves, they adamantly RESISTED teaching "both sides of the argument". No way would they allow Evolution to be taught in THEIR schools. "Equal time" was anathema.

 

NOW, today, the shoe is on the other foot. Darwinism, evolution and Big Bangs are all the rage in academia. And NOW all of a sudden the Creationist crowd, being in the minority, NOW they can see the VALUE of "equal time and equal speech".

 

Funny how that works. Fuckers.

[Mr. Neil]

What gets me is that even secular citizens have fallen for the "it's only fair to teach both sides" argument.  We've got some educatin' to do.

It's sad because fairness isn't the issue at all. It's incredibly unfair to treat bullshit and legitimate science equally.

 

In order to teach something in a science class, it has to first be scientific.

[Zach]

This is really disturbing to me. Not because I think that the same 64% are particularly religious, but because they just don't know enough about Science to know that Creationism isn't.

[Reality Amplifier]

Gallup Poll: March 05, 2001

Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans

Some Americans appear uncertain as to meaning of terms, however

 

Survey Methods

The results reported here are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,016 adults, 18 years and older, conducted February 19-21, 2001. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

 

How informed would you say you are about the theory of evolution? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of evolution, somewhat informed, not too informed, or not informed at all?   

                                                            

Very               Somewhat         Not              Noti nformed       No      

informed           informed      too informed     at all                 Opinion

               

34%                   47%            11%                  6%                2%

 

 

          

2001 Feb 19-21    

How informed would you say you are about the theory of creationism? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of creationism, somewhat informed, not too informed, or not informed at all?

 

Very                Somewhat         Not              Noti nformed       No      

informed           informed      too informed     at all                 Opinion

          

40%                  40%               10%              7%                       3%

I think it likely the creationist crowd in that poll probably falls into the same demographic as those in the gallup poll (above) from 2001.

 

It seems to me that the 66% segment of the population that are only somewhat informed (or less) are the ones who are making uninformed decisions and voicing their desires for creationism/intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

 

I have an idea! Why don't we teach the kids that sun revolves around the earth, AND that the earth revolves around the sun...and then let them decide for themselves?

 

Because there is mountains of well-supported scientific evidence to the contrary...

[spamandham]

I have an idea!  Why don't we teach the kids that sun revolves around the earth, AND that the earth revolves around the sun...and then let them decide for themselves? 

   

Because there is mountains of well-supported scientific evidence to the contrary...

 

Just to pick nits, neither revolves around the other. Gravitational attraction of multiple bodies isn't nearly as straightforward as it might seem.

[boyinasuitcase]

Hmmm...I never took polls that seriously, but anyway, I think it's important to teach both sides of the argument—Creationism and evolution; however, Creationism taught in schools should go something like this: teachers briefly explain its 'theory,' refute it by using science, evolution, and common sense, and then everyone can laugh at how ridiculous Creationism and the Bible really is, and we're all better educated!

[spamandham]

Of course, before you can conclude anything from a poll, you have to know how the questions were actually worded and how the people who answered it were selected.

 

"Which of the following more closely reflects your views

 

a. living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time

b. evolution whereby every kind on earth spontaneously popped into existence by random chance and then microevolution resulted in the variety of species"

 

Then go to churches to get people to answer the poll.

[Christopher Carrion]

And let's face it; it's not even as if the kids are going to be given the chance to engage with the notion of "Creationism" from a position of critical rationality; rather they are simpkly going to be force fed Christian creation myth:

 

"Sir, sir, I read in a book that some people in South Africa believe the world was spun out of webs by a giant space spider called Biliku,"

 

"Well they're wrong; the bible says so."

[Guest aexapo]

Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

 

The New York Times

 

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: August 31, 2005

 

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, NOW it's time to start a secularist homeschooling program!!! No wonder our public schools aren't educating people -- they're too concerned with high school football playoffs, AND Jesus!

[TruthWarrior]

And let's face it; it's not even as if the kids are going to be given the chance to engage with the notion of "Creationism" from a position of critical rationality; rather they are simpkly going to be force fed Christian creation myth:

 

"Sir, sir, I read in a book that some people in South Africa believe the world was spun out of webs by a giant space spider called Biliku,"

 

"Well they're wrong; the bible says so."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It would have been fun to have a sort of humanities or "religions of the world" class as an elective though. They could learn about all the creation stories. Of course they'd probably still complain about that too.

[Eponymic]

The thing that makes it so dangerous is that once you allow it equal time to be taught, then all those screwy Christian teachers are going to take a mile instead of an inch and make Creationism sound like the rational belief and Evolution sound like its stupid.

[DaveL]

Sigh...

 

Keep Creationism in the Religion class, and keep Evolution in the Science class, but the two of them should never be taught together.

 

I'd be interested to see the demographic breakdown of that 'randomly' selected poll.

[Mr. Neil]

The only circumstance under which creationism could be addressed in a science class is as an example of what is not science.

 

In fact, I'm beginning to think that perhaps educators should go that route. After all, the main reason that 64% of Americans want creationism taught is because 64% of America doesn't understand science. They simply don't have proper scientific education or demonstratable example of bad science.

 

I say we give it to them.

[Mike D]

What I would like to know is what exactly is there to "teach" about creationism?

 

"One day an invisible man with magical powers waved his wand and zapped everything you see into existence. End of lesson, class dismissed".

 

[Ouroboros]

Right, especially if they claim that ID doesn't teach Creationism, so they don't even have a story to go by.

[Mike D]

Right, especially if they claim that ID doesn't teach Creationism, so they don't even have a story to go by.

I didn't even know they distinguished between the two. But either way, there's no evidence, it's all presuppostions. With no story and nothing but presuppositions what do you teach? Might as well presuppose that invisible mermaids are responsible for making the waves in the ocean and teach that too

[Ouroboros]

I didn't even know they distinguished between the two.  But either way, there's no evidence, it's all presuppostions.  With no story and nothing but presuppositions what do you teach?  Might as well presuppose that invisible mermaids are responsible for making the waves in the ocean and teach that too 

Supposedly they're different, since Creationist proponents couldn't get it approved for science class a while back, now they resorted to Intelligent Design, which includes Alien genesis as well. Look at the Raelians website:

 

But I don't think the ID people really would like talk about aliens be part of the teaching though, since a majority of the ID-ists are in fact Creationists.

 

http://www.rael.org/

 

Looking at ID as a generic hypothesis, it doesn't say if it's God or Zeus or Brahman is the creator.

[Mike D]

Looking at ID as a generic hypothesis, it doesn't say if it's God or Zeus or Brahman is the creator.

Which I guess goes back to what we were saying before, if there's no story what exactly are you going to "teach"? What kind of homework do you give if there is nothing to study? What do final exam questions consist of? If one kid believes evolution was part of the design instead of magic, does he fail the class? Hell, the more I think about this the more absurd it really sounds.

[Ouroboros]

Which I guess goes back to what we were saying before, if there's no story what exactly are you going to "teach"?  What kind of homework do you give if there is nothing to study?  What do final exam questions consist of?  If one kid believes evolution was part of the design instead of magic, does he fail the class?  Hell, the more I think about this the more absurd it really sounds.

It is absurd, no doubt about it.

[Biggles7268]

why should a religous point of view be taught at school? Don't they have church or something for that shit? that is what church is for isn't it?

[DaveL]

I'd say that 63.9% of those Americans think that The Flying Spaghetti Monster was the creator, not the Invisble Sky Daddy and his historically inaccurate son.

 

[Curtdude]

Just wait until the lawyers representing other religions get into the fray...HA! We're gonna be (groan, again) the laughingstock of the Industrialized World (and the educated part of the Third World). The Hindu Egg Creation Story will be taught along with the myriad of animistic religious myths, followed by all of the American aboriginal stories. Only those come to mind at the moment. I'll bet the Sikhs and the Jains have their own versions, too.

 

Hyuck, hyuck!

 

I know a lot of you are wringing your hands at all of this. But haven't we here in the US always been at least mildy (if not vehemently) anti-intellectual? Educated folks have always been seen as effete, ivory tower dreamers who lacked the real-world chutzpah to make it in "The Real World of Business"? Scientists are incurable geeks who are as sexy as a card catalogue and helplessly unromantic.

 

[i'm obviously using irony and sarcasm (for those of you who just don't get bitchy repartee), but my beef with our education system is completely serious.]

 

And have we seriously reformed the financing of education, or is it still paid for by taxes in the surrounding community, meaning rich quarters of the city get rich schools, poor neighborhoods get poorly funded schools. Duh.

 

We are getting exactly what we have paid for. Ignorant masses still believing that scientific theory can be trumped by biblical myths.

 

[Amethyst]

why should a religous point of view be taught at school? Don't they have church or something for that shit? that is what church is for isn't it?

 

I agree, but apparently the fundies want everyone brainwashed into their cult so they can take over the world or something.

 

If religion is taught in school, it should be called "mythology," not science.

[spamandham]

Ok, so some unknown designer designed life and put it together in some unknown way. Now supposedly the life created is not that much different from existing life, otherwise evolution would be a factor.

 

Do these dolts not realize that the earth was not hospitable to modern life in its early form? Microbs maybe, but not plant and animal life. The vast majority of land based plant life depends on worm casings (dirt), and animal life depends on plant life.

 

So in addition to creating life, the intelligent designer also had to terraform the earth first.

 

So we have a testable theory again. What evidence is there of terraforming other than the terraforming life itself performs?