Intelligent Design (ID)
Results of Zogby poll of 2006-MAR on ID
Sponsored link:
About Intelligent Design (ID):
The Xogby International poll asked questions concerning the teaching of
origins of the species in schools, including the belief in Intelligent Design. ID is the belief that some structures in animals
and plants are so complex and have components that are so inter-related that they
could only have
come about as the result of a conscious design by an intelligent agent. In
contrast, the Theory
of Evolution suggests that development of the species was driven by purely
natural forces without interventions by a creator with super-human knowledge.
In excess of 99% of geological and biological scientists favor of the Theory of
Evolution. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that evolution happened, but that
Adam and Eve's souls did not develop naturally; they required the intervention
of God's creative power. Many conservative Protestants are promoting ID because, in
one version, it has a God creating the animal and plant species.
Promoters of ID suggest that it is an alternative scientific theory that says
nothing about the identity of the creator. Extraterrestrial visitors from outer
space with scientific knowledge well beyond ours could have landed on Earth and
created species. ID does not necessarily involve an omnipotent creator God. it
merely requires an intelligent species of life with very advanced skills.
The poll:
On 2006-MAR-06, Zogby International released the results of its poll
on the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools. It involved a a
random telephone survey of 1,004 subjects between FEB-27 and MAR-02.. The margin
of error is ±3.2 percentage points.
The level of agreement was calculated for the entire sample as well as a
function of location, age group, education level, "race," political party
support, marital status, presence of children in the family, gender, wages,
religion, "born-again" status, etc.
The content of questions 1 to 4, and their results, not
reported in Zogby's statement. 1
Question 5:
Results: 69% say that biology teachers should teach
"Darwin's theory of evolution" along with "scientific evidence"
against it. 21% say that they should teach "only evolution and the scientific
evidence that supports it." 10% were unsure. These sound like answers to a
simple question. Unfortunately, subjects probably interpreted the options in a
variety of ways:
 | What is the question about? There is ambiguity
over the phrase "Darwin's theory of evolution:"
 | Most probably assumed that the phrase refers to
the present Theory of Evolution which the vast majority of scientists
accept as fact. |
| Those subjects who are familiar with the
development of scientific thought over the past two centuries might
interpret the phrase as referring to Darwin's personal belief that
evolution occurs gradually at a more or less constant rate due. Most
scientists fully agree with Darwin that evolution was and is driven by
natural selection. However, they have rejected Darwin's beliefs of
gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium. The latter is the belief,
supported by scientific evidence, that the development of a new species
occurs relatively suddenly, followed by a long interval during which
there is little further development before another rapid change happens. |
| Teaching only Darwin's original theory and
ignoring punctuated equilibrium would obviously be an unbalanced
treatment of the topic, an indicate a poor treatment of the subject
matter. |
|
| What classes would be involved? There is
ambiguity over which classes would be involved:
| Most subjects probably interpreted the question
as referring to science classes only. Past court rulings have stated
that ID and creation science are religious beliefs and are not to be
taught in science classes. (Of course, with the recent addition of
strict constructionist justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, that court
might well reverse its previous rulings.) |
| Some subjects might interpret the question as
referring both to science classes and comparative religion classes. A
comparative religion class might have a biology teacher explain
evolution, a representatives of the Discovery Institute explaining ID,
and an Evangelical pastor explaining creation science. A comparative
religion course that taught only evolution would obviously be
imbalanced, as would a course that taught only Judeo-Christian-Muslim
beliefs in origins. |
|
| Does the question involve ID and creation science?
Subjects would probably interpret the question as indicting what beliefs
about origins should be taught in science class:
| Most subjects would probably interpret the first
option as involving the teaching of "Darwin's theory of
evolution," ID, Creation Science, and other religious beliefs
about origins in a science class. The second option would allow only the
teaching of evolution. |
| Others might interpret both options as involving
only details of the way in which evolution is taught by itself. |
|
| Is it a loaded question?
| Many subjects would agree with the vast majority
of scientists that there is no evidence that disproves the Theory of Evolution. Although scientists generally agree that there the
Theory of
Evolution is incomplete because of missing gaps in the data that have
not yet been filled in -- and my never be filled in -- most scientists
accept evolution as a fact for which there is no evidence proving that
it did not happened. Yet the first option might be interpreted as
implying that evolution can be disproved. |
|
| Which schools are being referred to?
| Some subjects might interpret the question as
referring to both public and private schools. |
| Some might interpret it to refer only to public
schools. |
|
What the poll might have asked: More meaningful
results might have been obtained if this single question had been replaced
by five specific questions. For example:
| Which of these statements is closer to your opinion?
Teachers in science classes should teach:
| Only Darwin's initial beliefs about Theory of
Evolution. |
| The Theory of Evolution as scientists currently
believe it to be. |
| Both of the above. |
|
| Should alternative theories of the origin of the species (for example
Intelligent Design and various religions' beliefs about creation) be:
| Not taught in schools. |
| Taught in comparative religion classes only. |
| Taught in science classes only. |
| Taught in both comparative religion and science
classes. |
|
| Which of these statements is closer to your opinion:
Should the teaching of origins in science class involve
| Only the Theory of Evolution? |
| The Theory of Evolution and other beliefs that
have been proposed, like Intelligent Design and Creation Science and
other stories of origins from a variety of religions |
|
| Which of these statements is closer to your opinion:
| Teachers in science classes should teach the
Theory of Evolution along with support and criticisms of that theory. |
| Teachers in science classes should teach the
Theory of Evolution with only the scientific evidence that supports it.
|
|
| Which of these statements is closer to your opinion:
Parochial and other private schools
| Should be free to teach any and all theories of
the origins of the species in science classes. |
| Should only teach the Theory of Evolution on
science classes. |
|
Question 6:
Results: 77% agree that
when Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools, students should also be
able to learn about scientific evidence that points to "an intelligent design
of life." 19% disagree. The wording of this question is also problematical:
| The debate and court cases concerning ID are not
related simply to whether ID should be taught in public schools. A course in
a comparative religion class which teaches Evolution, ID, creation science,
and beliefs of non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions can probably be designed
to be constitutional. It can be argued that with such a large percentage of
American adults believing in either theistic Evolution or creation science,
that it is important that students be taught the great diversity of beliefs
about origins. Otherwise they will not be familiar both with the scientific
explanation and the various religious explanations of origins of the
species. Students would end up being only partly educated on the topic.
The conflict involves the teaching of ID in science classes of
public schools. Teaching of Evolution -- a scientific belief -- along with
ID and creation scientists -- religious beliefs -- is not permitted
according to past decision by various courts. Of course, as suggested above,
if the cases on which these rulings were re-evaluated by the present makeup
of the Supreme Court, they might well reach a different conclusion. |
| Whenever scientists are faced with a new observation
that does not fit into existing theories, there are two logical routes that
they might follow:
| That God or some other supernatural entity
created a miracle. |
| That a new explanation based on predictable laws
is yet to be discovered. |
All of science is based on the assumption that
miracles do not happen. The universe operates according to predictable laws,
of which many have yet to be discovered. If miracles involving the
suspension of the laws of the universe, then searching for those laws would
be a fruitless endeavor. Thus, the assumption that some supernatural entity
created new species or new organs in existing species cannot be considered a
scientific belief. There can be no scientific evidence proving ID unless one
is first able to prove that the foundational assumption on which science is
based is false. That is, one would have to prove the existence of a
supernatural entity. This has never been accomplished.
Faced with gaps i knowledge and data that cannot be explained, scientists
are forced by their initial assumptions about the universe to assume that
there is a natural explanation for the phenomenon that has yet to be
discovered. They do not create supernatural explanations, but merely say:
"We don't know." |
More meaningful data might have be obtained from the poll
if the suggested questions above were substituted for Zogby's Question 5 and 6.
Reference used:
- "Results from nationwide poll," 2006-MAR-06, at:
http://www.discovery.org/ This is a PDF file. You may require software to read it. Software can be obtained free from:
How you got here:
Copyright © 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2006-MAR-09
Latest update: 2006-MAR-10
Author: B.A. Robinson
| |
|
Page Translator: