I offer this is support of my rejection of the claim that Americans hold science in awe. In fact, this seems to be the new sex ed. Parents were unprepared to teach their kids anything useful about sex; they are far less qualified to choose between science and anti-science. mjh
Most in poll want creationism taught
Those in favor included liberals, secular supporters
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold 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, and the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points. …
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 Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say 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. This question was asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents and the margin of error is 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. Fifty-five percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.
Several things are troubling about the following argument. We are called upon to be open-minded, non-dogmatic to allow for a view held by dogmatic, close-minded people. In classic “1984”-style, Galileo is used to indict Science and defend Religion. We are told that “complexity” is next to godliness — if we haven’t figured it out yet, we can’t and won’t cuz it’s god’s doing. Letting ID into the classroom will keep religion out? Nonsense. mjh
ABQjournal: Science Classes Should Educate, Not Indoctrinate By Rebecca Keller, Science Text Publisher
However, being willing to consider a design inference, if the data point in that direction, is good science regardless of the philosophical or religious implications.
No scientist should ever be so committed to an ideology, whether that ideology is religious or philosophical in nature, that it blinds him to possible interpretations of scientific data. That happened in Galileo’s time and it is happening today whenever people close their eyes and plug their ears to design inferences in biology.
Living things are incredibly complex. Even on the microscopic scale each cell is literally packed with interacting networks of molecular machines. It looks designed. If it looks designed, how can it be unscientific to wonder if that design is real?
It is understandable that people are concerned about the metaphysical implications; if there is design then there must be a designer.
But the basic trouble, and the underlying reason this controversy never ends, is that evolution is a creation story; it has huge metaphysical implications no matter how it is taught. How is it less religious or less controversial to teach evolution as it is now, pretending that we somehow know that there is no design? …
In fact, disagreeing about how data should be interpreted is what scientists do. That is science. The history of science illustrates that disagreements in science are the very thing that fuels scientific discovery.
Evolution as a secular creation story is already being preached from the classroom pulpit. Teaching the controversy helps keep religion, of any flavor, out of the classroom. [mjh: how can she possibly believe that last statement?]
This is good science education and this is what is being proposed in Rio Rancho and across the country.
Rebecca Keller, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of New Mexico, is president of Gravitas Publications of Albuquerque and writes elementary and middle-school science textbooks.