Teach Both Strengths AND WEAKNESSES of Evolution

Open Minds Teach Both Sides

Teach Strengths & Weaknesses of Evolution
"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question..." - Charles Darwin

March 1, 2009 NEW ZOGBY Poll shows overwhelming support for teaching both "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question..." - Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

darwin origin species natural selection preservation favoured races struggle life darwin origin species natural selection preservation favoured races struggle life darwin origin species natural selection preservation favoured races struggle life
According to the poll, Democrats(82%) and liberals (86%) are even more likely than Republicans (73%) and conservatives (72%) to support the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution."

Support for teaching evidence against evolution is increasing, not declining.

The poll also shows a dramatic 9-point increase over 2006 in the percentage of likely voters who agree that "Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Support for that position has jumped to 78%, up from 69% in 2006. The percentage of likely voters who favor teaching only the evidence for evolution suffered a corresponding decline of 7 points, from 21% in 2006 to just over 14% this year.

Non-religious people overwhelmingly support teaching both sides.

Individuals identifying with no Christian or Jewish denomination favor the freedom to discuss evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" by nearly 82%

Voters of all political persuasions, including Democrats, Liberals, and Republicans, support teaching strengths and weaknesses by landslide margins.

Democrats (82%) support giving teachers and students the freedom to discuss Darwinism's "strengths and weaknesses" even more overwhelmingly than Republicans (73%). Self-identified liberals (86%) favor the freedom to discuss evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" more than conservatives (72%) liberals 86 favor freedom discuss evolutions strengths weaknesses conservatives 72

QUESTION: Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, "...a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin's statement?

Strongly agree 45%
Somewhat agree 31%
Total Agree 76%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 12%
Total Disagree 19%
Not sure 5%

Three-quarters (76%) say they agree with Darwin's statement, while about a fifth (19%) say they disagree

http://siteground201.com/~metrovoi/?q=node/64 http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/NewsletterArchive/2009....

Teach Both Strengths AND WEAKNESSES of Evolution Petition!

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question..." - Charles Darwin
Teach Both Sides Petition!

Teacher Resources
Email the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE)


Admissions by Evolutionists that highlight some weaknesses in evolutionary theory here. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/evol_quotes....

Life from Non-Life
Weakness: Chemical Origin of Life Has Not Even Been Demonstrated To Be Possible!
Hoyle, Sir Fred, The Intelligent Universe (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983), 256 pp.
pp. 20-21

Weakness: No Transitional Fossils, particularly in huge systematic gaps, not just species to species!
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
geological record." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st Edition, 1859.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, over one hundred years after Darwin first published On The Origin of Species, massive gaps in the fossil record persisted. The gaps were not just between what were believed to be closely related species, but more troublesome for gradualists, included large systematic gaps such as the Cambrian explosion, the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, and marine vertebrates (fish) to amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. The plant kingdom had similar difficulties. These gaps were widely known in academic circles but rarely discussed openly.
Hence in 1972, Niles Eldridge and Harvard's late Stephen J. Gould, (a Marxist), neither of whom were questioning the general concept of evolution, proposed what is referred to as punctuated equilibrium, that in essence said that evolution was mostly unobservable (i.e. did not usually happen), but that when it did it happened so fast that it left no evidence!
Why did Gould propose this fundamentally un-testable idea? It was precisely in an attempt to craft a different (non-Darwinian) theory of evolution (albeit still driven by natural selection), that better fit observable data, or more correctly, the lack of data, commonly referred to as the "gaps in the fossil record"! To quote the late Gould in a 1977 issue of Natural History, “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology — we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” In short, there was no evidence Harvard's Gould could use to support evolution, so he carefully crafted an alternative theory that didn't require evidence at all!
Weakness: The Assumed Early Atmosphere in Miller Urey was Wrong!
Gribbin, John, "Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia—And Life," New Scientist, vol. 94 (May 13, 1982), pp. 413-416.
p. 413
Weakness - There is No Evidence of Gradualistic Evolution
Gould, Stephen Jay, "An Early Start," Natural History, vol. 87 (February 1978), pp. 10-24.
p. 10

"Early in November, an announcement of the discovery of some fossil prokaryotes from South Africa pushed the antiquity of life back to 3.4 billion years."
p. 10

"If true monerans were alive 3.4 billion years ago, then the common ancestor of monerans and … ‘methanogens’ must be considerably more ancient. Since the oldest dated rocks, the Isua Supracrustals of West Greenland, are 3.8 billion years old, we are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life."
p. 24

"Life apparently arose about as soon as the earth became cool enough to support it."
p. 24

"Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks. It was primarily a prejudice of nineteenth-century liberalism facing a world in revolution. But it continues to color our supposedly objective reading of life’s history."
p. 24

"The history of life, as I read it, is a series of long stable states, punctuated at rare intervals by major events that occur with great rapidity and set up the next stable era…. My favorite metaphor is a world of occasional pulses, driving recalcitrant systems from one stable state to the next."
Weakness - Fossil Record Gaps!

Martin, Robert D., "Primate origins: plugging the gaps", Nature, Vol 363, 20 May 1993. , p 225.
"The fossil record of primate evolution is obviously incomplete, despite major continuing achievements by field paleontologists. But how large are the gaps? Do we merely need to bridge over a few spaces here and there, or are there in fact yawning chasms? Our effectiveness in sampling past primate species has major implications for interpretations of primate evolution based on the known fossil record...."
Martin goes on to discuss that with primates, only 3.8% of assumed species in the last 65 million years have been found! When only 'modern' primates are examined, the number drops to 3.4% !
p. 233

It is clear that there are still many uncertainties regarding the course and timing of early primate evolution...Limited sampling of the fossil record, combined with the fragmentary nature of most of the fossils concerned, also explains why interpretations of primate evolution have been subject to repeated, often extensive revision. In the face of major gaps in the fossil record, far-reaching interpretation of fragmentary fossil remains can easily lead to misinterpretation of phylogenetic relationships.
(For more info from this article, including a graphic depicting the low sample rate, see the Oct 3, 2003 newsletter here.)
Weakness - Facts Do Not Support Evolutionary Development of Cells!
Green, David E., and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), 420 pp.
p. 403
Weakness - How did the Genetic Code Arise?

Haskins, Caryl P., "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, vol. 59 (May/June 1971), p. 298-307.
Weakness: DNA/RNA/Enzymes/Catalysts Can't Be Made Even in the Lab - Much Less in a Hostile Pre-biotic "Soup"
Horgan John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), pp. 117-125.

Weakness: Genetic Code Origin as Obscure as Origin of Life Itself
Maddox, John, "The Genesis Code by Numbers," Nature, vol. 367 (January 13, 1994), p. 111.
"It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life’s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins.
"So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."
Weakness: Evolution Doesn't Explain The Origin of INFORMATION in the Genetic Code!
Morowitz, Harold J., "The Six Million-Dollar Man," Science News (July 31, 1976), p. 73.

Much more at the link
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2009/04/15 00:52:32
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    Hitler was so inspired by evolution.
  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2009/04/15 00:41:41 (edited)
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    Darwins THEORY was based on the simple cell. The simple cell theory has been proven wrong. The evolutionists changed their theory to adjust for that. I don't support a fact less theory that changes as new facts emerge. Religions don't change like that.
    Then we have the same people using a pigs tooth to support it. I classify evolution as a another government sponsored conspiracy theory. I see the tin foil hats. I remember when parents got together and had those evolution fantasy school books removed in one county. They were sneaked back in. It's mostly youngsters, that have been indoctrinated by it in public school, that plug for it.
  • Xavier 2009/04/15 00:41:03
    First of all, for anyone to think that life could become from an explosion, is ignorant. If that were the case, every time a bomb goes off, someone would be created. That's absurd!!
  • StarrGazerr 2009/04/14 21:23:46
    As long as no one makes the mistake of bringing creationism into a scientific discussion, I think the weaker parts of Darwin's theory should be discussed in detail.

    However, if as is so often the case the attack on the theory of evolution (which despite its "weaknesses" is overwhelmingly supported by mountains of evidence) is simply a ploy to try to get religious extremism into the classroom, then it is a very dangerous and completely inappropriate move.
  • Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥ 2009/04/14 20:16:02
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    That would be a big help to all to be able to come to valid conclusions. How do we get them to provide unbiased textbooks?
  • Jwalden... Dave Sa... 2009/04/14 21:08:55
    Jwalden --- Constitution Party
    That is a million dollar question.

    I think it can start by getting rid of the current Congress at national and state levels, and find those who will consider the matter.
  • Dave Sa... Jwalden... 2009/04/14 21:12:52
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    I understood that the textbooks are influenced by groups of scientists, that's why Velikovski had trouble publishing his books with a textbook publisher because some of them pressured the publisher not to publish his works.
  • StarrGa... Dave Sa... 2009/04/14 21:21:19
    Velikovsky? Do you really think that theories of interplanetary collisions based largely on one person's interpretation of the Bible should be considered "scientific" or "scholarly"?
  • Dave Sa... StarrGa... 2009/04/14 21:24:44
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    But he wasn't writing a textbook. No one should have interfered, yet it was the so-called objective scientists who opposed his ideas to that extent. I do think he had some valuable ideas to contribute, some having to do with history, but he was not strictly a scientist but drew from many disciplines. I think we need more of that.
  • StarrGa... Dave Sa... 2009/04/14 21:34:41
    He published his theories. I even have a copy of "Worlds in Collision" somewhere. I found it interesting reading, but it should not be taught as science. Philosophy, perhaps. Mythology, anthropology maybe. But certainly not physics.

    That's the chief problem I have with many of the advocates of creationism. Anyone DOES have every right to believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that human beings were literally created from dust. It's not impossible. I think that with God nothing is impossible. But to claim that such a belief constitutes science, or that it can be objectively demonstrated, is in my humble opinion inappropriate.
  • Xavier StarrGa... 2009/04/15 00:45:04
    Your saying that God to make man from dust is ignorant, and that an explosion from space isnt? What dumb tree did you fall from? If the "Big Boom" could've happened, then everytime a bomb goes off, people would be created, and not die. So that blows Darwin out of the water, because even on his death bed, he agreed that everything he thought he knew was wrong, and that God did exist.
  • StarrGa... Xavier 2009/04/15 00:49:31
    I never said it was ignorant. It is simply not science, as it cannot be measured by objective scientific means. I also never said it wasn't true, simply that it is not demonstrable and therefore, once again, not science.
  • Xavier StarrGa... 2009/04/15 00:59:18
    Yes, but as Paul the apostle said, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21
  • Dave Sa... StarrGa... 2009/04/15 04:48:57
    Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥
    Velikovski did predict that Venus would be very hot at a time when scientists thought that it was covered with water, and he predicted Argon in Mars' atmosphere, which was later confirmed.
  • BillHill "In God We Trust" 2009/04/14 16:00:43
    BillHill  "In God We Trust"
    Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    Adolf Hitler: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
  • StarrGa... BillHil... 2009/04/15 01:01:26
    Are you sure that was Hitler? I thought for sure that was Karl Rove.
  • pbird49 2009/04/14 15:57:03
    While I agree with the concept of teaching the plus and minus possibilities, there is a potential here to open the door for legal and political costs.
    But it is right, so I signed on.
  • Jwalden... pbird49 2009/04/14 18:28:44
    Jwalden --- Constitution Party
    the scopes trial that gave evolution a door to be taught was for both versions. See how much 'both' they want?

    I have a poll with links in my profile - first dozen questions
  • pbird49 Jwalden... 2009/04/14 18:46:21
    You have 12 pages of questions and none labeled such that I can find the poll easily. Do you remember the name of the post?
  • Jwalden... pbird49 2009/04/14 18:51:50
    Jwalden --- Constitution Party
    sorry - here and the link source

    How well do you know the facts

About Me

Jwalden --- Constitution Party

Jwalden --- Constitution Party

Jackson, GA, US

2008/02/03 22:55:01

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals