How about not teaching either theory in school and focusing on the more concrete aspects of biology instead - such as anatomy, taxonomy, ecology, reproduction, etc.? Leave this metaphysical stuff (Darwinism, Creationism, ID) for independent study.

Creationism is not science, but both science and faith in a Creator are compatible with American culture.

Believing that living things have remained the same since the beginning of time is not compatible with science.

"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."

Wow, that means those believing in Darwinian evolution without God's guidance have doubled from the poll that Orrin keeps citing - from 13% to 26%.

Impressive. So much for the shrinking cult, huh?

All you have to do is add "with no guidance" to the natural selection question and you cut it in half. One problem is that no two Darwinists even agree on the basics and almost no one outside their group pays enough attention to differentiate, so folks think Natural Selection is compatible with Design or Creation, which no Darwinist does.

"How about not teaching either theory in school and focusing on the more concrete aspects of biology instead - such as anatomy, taxonomy, ecology, reproduction, etc.?"

What do you mean, "either theory"? On the one hand, there's a scientific theory of evolution, supported by observation each and every day. On the other hand, there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design. There is some vague speculation, but no actual scientific theory has ever been posited, nor tested.

If ID ever makes it to that point, by all means, teach it in science classes.

"Leave this metaphysical stuff (Darwinism, Creationism, ID) for independent study."

The poll is somewhat vague as to where in school these subjects should be taught, but the theory of evolution happens to be science, while creationism and ID are not, but may well find their appropriate venues in a school - somewhere outside a science class, of course.

"All you have to do is add "with no guidance" to the natural selection question and you cut it in half."

What, on your say so? This from the guy who routinely counts undecideds as agreeing with him?

Orrin, there was an option there for "guided by a supreme being". If the respondents had thought it was guided by God, they would have responded with that - or are you really suggesting that 13% actually believe evolution was guided by aliens, but just happened too shy to say so when polled? And on the basis of that, their response, which just happens to disagree with your view, should not be counted?

"One problem is that no two Darwinists even agree on the basics"

Biologists agree on plenty as regards the theory of evolution.

" and almost no one outside their group pays enough attention to differentiate, so folks think Natural Selection is compatible with Design or Creation, which no Darwinist does."

Natural selection is not compatible with creationism ("Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible"), and since ID has not yet set out to disprove natural selection as such - only to question it in a few mindbogglingly rare instances.

If an ID theory is ever proposed, we can see what exactly it is compatible with, but I think that that day is still a long way off.

creeper:

Yes, polling is all about the form of the question. There's nothing about natural selection that would put off a Creationist or I.D.er by itself. When God or the Intelligence guides Creation it's an instance of natural selection. You have to include no guidance to get down to the Darwinist core.

Gallup has asked the same question the same way fdor over twenty years and the range is something like 9 to 14% over that period believe there's no guidance.

Careful, creeper. Natural selection may be an idea with one leg in biology but it isn't only biology. It's certainly also a political idea, a foundation block in the battlement of progressivism. And since progressivism is a milder form of revolutionary politics, and revolutionary politics is simply religion by political means, natural selection turns out to be a religious idea as well. Once you acknowledge that an idea may have more than one component you've necessarily raised the question of which is the most important component, and once you do that you've lost control over where the conversation will go. For my own part I'm happy to see ID and creationism stay outside the sacred bastion of the high school science class so long as natural selection is dragged kicking and screaming out of it as well, and taught in all of its aspects. Count on that happening in your lifetime.

creeper -

A scientific theory that can't be empirically verified or falsified may be what you call science but its what I call philosophy. Biology happens to be a science -- the theory of evolution by natural selection and genetic drift is a philosophical assertion. It is a more tenable philosophical position than biblical (young earth) creationism (in my opinion) but it still isn't science unless you are willing to dilute the meaning of science as to let in all sorts of other cooky ideas (such as freudian psychology). Interpretation of past events, especially unobserved past events which are imagined and pieced together by observation of incomplete evidence, isn’t a strong groundwork for any science. Though that doesn’t mean its an unworthy pursuit or else philosophy and history would be worthless as well.

(and we are talking in general here - I am well aware that many aspects of biology that can be empirically and experimentally proven do cross over into the broad strokes of darwinism. But the foundation of darwinian evolution is no more scientific than history or philosophy)

"There's nothing about natural selection that would put off a Creationist or I.D.er by itself."

Not an IDer, but natural selection is incompatible with a belief in creationism ("Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible") - and that's leaving aside for now that you've been remarkably and unreasonably obtuse in previous discussions about natural selection - refusing to accept, for example, that variability of traits or inheritance of traits occur in nature while accepting freely that they occur in captivity. With nothing to back it up, of course.

Granted, wording is an important part in polling, and for my taste the polls out there are too vague, and should be more detailed... BUT:

The choice given in this poll was:

Humans and other living things have:

a) existed in present form only

b) evolved over time/guided by supreme being

c) evolved over time/through natural selection

d) evolved over time/don't know how evolved

e) don't know

It's pretty clear that if I thought that man evolved, but with God guiding, I would opt for (b), and if I thought that man evolved with no guidance, I would opt for (c), and if I thought that man evolved, but for some reasons aliens or somesuch had an influence on the process, I would opt for (d)... or (b).

"When God or the Intelligence guides Creation it's an instance of natural selection."

Erm, no. That would be supernatural selection (presuming you mean a divine entity by "the Intelligence"). Unless you're using "guides" so loosely as to mean that God or "the Intelligence" created life, then left it alone to do its thing forever after.

"Gallup has asked the same question the same way fdor over twenty years and the range is something like 9 to 14% over that period believe there's no guidance."

Yes, and 51% believe man evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. No guidance got 9% in 1982, and rose to 13% by about a year ago which is, if anything, not a declining trend. Certainly Intelligent Design has been in the news a little more this past year, so perhaps we're seeing different numbers now because people are looking at it and just not buying it.

Which is hardly surprising, because there's no there there.

Both Gallup and Pew are, IMO, reputable pollsters and have used good sample sizes in their polls, though personally I wish both would use more detailed questions in their polls.

I like the implication that maybe scientists don't like the "fairness". I don't fault them their science, but it just seems they want to pound down anything outside it. They should have more....faith in the power of their science. Otherwise, it becomes a test of wills and resentment.

"Once you acknowledge that an idea may have more than one component you've necessarily raised the question of which is the most important component, and once you do that you've lost control over where the conversation will go."

And I don't acknowledge that. Your line of reasoning attempting to tie the theory of natural selection to progressive politics (how?) and that in turn to religion is one of the more strained pieces of logic I have seen in a while.

The theory of natural selection is a scientific attempt to explain how something works (and worked in the past). No more. It is not prescriptive, but descriptive. It is not a political idea, nor is it a religion.

And it's not out to get you. It is simply the best scientific explanation we have at the moment for how evolution occurred, that's all. You can accept that and still be a good Christian. No biggie.

"But the foundation of darwinian evolution is no more scientific than history or philosophy"

The modern theory of evolution finds itself confirmed both in ongoing research all the time. Which aspect of it do you find questionable?

Shelton,

That should have read:

"But the foundation of darwinian evolution is no more scientific than history or philosophy"

The modern theory of evolution finds itself confirmed in ongoing research all the time. Which aspect of the theory do you find questionable?

Creeper: Genetics is a science; natural selection is a footnote.

David,

As I'm sure you're aware, the theory of natural selection is a well-established scientific theory, and a significant part of the modern theory of evolution. If there's an aspect of it you find questionable on scientific grounds, then just come out and say so.

Creeper: Once we understand the basics of genetic inheritance, we understand that mistakes can occur. Sometimes there's a transcription error, sometimes there is a spontaneous change in the code, sometimes a particle zipping through the body can cut a strand and create a new chromosome. Sometimes that happens to gametes and sometimes those gametes meet other gametes. Sometimes the mutation is expressed, and sometimes the host lives to reproduce. Sometimes the mutation spreads. If it is expressed, it will spread unless (a) it is incompatible with survival or (b) something else happens to its host population to kill it off.

Focussing on natural selection is like thinking the cool part about gravity is what happened to the apple.

Well said, David, but not really a challenge to natural selection as such - merely an acknowledgement that the theory of evolution is more than just the theory of natural selection, and that natural selection itself can overlap, for example, with genetic mutation.

The questions I have strike at the heart of the matter, not at the specifics surrounding the theory. They are in part:

Do random genetic mutations that are both beneficial and heritable occur often enough to cause speciation? Darwinists can not answer this question without tautology, and that is not acceptable if evolution is to be considered a true science.

What are the limits, if any, to the changes that can be caused by mutation over time? This vital question remains conveniently unanswered. I say conveniently because Darwinists have set themselves up with a omniscient system of interpretation. If the predictions of your evolutionary theory can encompass anything whatsoever that may happen in the future then its no better than if it is unable to make any predictions at all. And again, a science that can’t make a single meaningful prediction about the physical world is not to be considered serious.

How can the demarcation of speciation be determined from the fossil record without the assumption of the validity of the principals of speciation in the first place? Here, a major principal of darwinism is again begging the question (in the logical meaning). How can speciation be determined with any confidence at all from a fossil record largely lacking in testable DNA with no living population to observe or test for reproductive isolation? An untestable educated guess (based on other untestable educated guesses) isn't my idea of good science.

I don’t really want to bother arguing specifics, though there are many specific questions that should bother the honest darwinist, such as the inability for geneticists to create a truly random mutating simulation that leads to complexity rather than to chaos, and why the method of post hoc interpretation should be considered valid in field such as biology when it has so often proven to be flatly wrong in that field (i.e. coeleacanth observations (of actual behavior) disproving suppositions that the amphibian evolved from similar fish).

I have to go pick up the family now and go home – sorry – I’ll be back tomorrow to see how badly I get torn up here. But I am honest about my concerns.

creeper;

As you guys have recently argued, everything that exists in the universe is natural, so natural selection is in no way incompatible with God or aliens or whoever establishing the natural processes. The questions are simply inartful.

All you have to do to is ask a simple either/or question;

Do you believe that evolution has been guided by some sort of higher being or beings or is a purely random process of nature? And you'll get the Gallup split.

The only surprising result in the Pew poll is that not even a majority believes in evolution.

"The only surprising result in the Pew poll is that not even a majority believes in evolution."

In Gallup it's 51%, in Pew it's 48%. Not much of a change, and certainly still a plurality. Creationism went from 45% to 44%.

"Do you believe that evolution has been guided by some sort of higher being or beings or is a purely random process of nature?"

Talk about an inartful question. Evolution is not a random process, though randomness is a component of it.

Creeper: the theory of evolution is more than just the theory of natural selection

I'll say. Basically, there's nothing left of natural selection that can't be covered in five minutes tacked on to the end of a genetics class.

David,

so you think natural selection is perfectly valid, but less significant than other factors that are also part of the theory of evolution. Fine by me.

Anyone see the story about the completion of the chimp genome? OJ, you really should post it...