We can still squash it. An article about the Texas science standards has this question on the side: What do you think the appropriate lesson should be in public schools?
- Evolution only (50%)
- Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (5%)
- Evolution and creationism (32%)
- Creationism only (13%)
Pick one!
Clear those cookies each time so you can vote early and often.
After my vote:
Evolution only (88, 60.3%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (6, 4.1%)
Evolution and creationism (36, 24.7%)
Creationism only (16, 11%)
I voted!
Guess which I voted for.
I must admit, it brings me a little bit of hope that 50% voted “Evolution Only” before Pharyngulization. It was up 63% when I voted.
When you said “Texas-sized poll,” I thought there’d be more than 100 votes against us. We’ll have this super skewed in no time.
Totally, creation all the way, just creation, according to the book, verbatim!
The poll needs a “Evolution with enough creationism to illustrate the difference between science and lunacy,” but I went with the next-best option.
I guess PZ does mess with Texas.
From what I’ve seen, if PZ were to engage in a battle of wits with the ENTIRE state of Texas, he’d have to drink a whole bottle of Jack Daniels just to make it fair.
I think that it should be evolution with it’s weaknesses. I think showing kids that there is a bunch of stuff that we just don’t know could inspire them to fill in the blanks. Science should be presented as it is-warts and all.
McCain is trying to call off the debate. Just thought I’d mention.
“Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory” – I’d say that for just about any theory, but …
It’s usually loaded, but on the other hand they do have all out creationism, too, so I’m conflicted.
Well the good news is that right now it looks like the pro-science faction has the upper hand:
In truth, I don’t know why even astronomy, let alone chemistry, would still have the “strengths and weaknesses” rule–although cosmological models should have their weaknesses discussed.
I voted “evolution only” because of the limited choices. Obviously real weaknesses may call for some discussion, but I wouldn’t open that can of worms for the creationists to try to shove the crawly things down the throats of students.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Current figures:
Evolution only (312, 83.6%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (8, 2.1%)
Evolution and creationism (36, 9.7%)
Creationism only (17, 4.6%)
The problem with option #2 is that what a scientist means by “weaknesses” is not what a creationist on a school board means by “weaknesses”.
Well, I’m sure the “weaknesses” they want brought up are not the legitimate weaknesses in the theory (horizontal gene transfer and such) but rather straw man weaknesses proposed only to make creationism/ID seem more plausible as a result of a false dichotomy.
Jupiter, you are technically correct… however I voted for option 1. Like any other scientific field, evolution hasn’t found all the answers yet… however it shouldn’t be the point of the curriculum to focus on those weaknesses. Focus on teaching the theory. Just like it shouldn’t be necessary to specify in the physics curriculum that the questions not answered by the big bang theory should be taught, it isn’t necessary to specify that the “weaknesses” of evolution be part of the curriculum.
Evolution only, 86.8% !
As a Jewish liberal egghead kid, I personally see evolution as G-d’s way of keeping Creation interesting.
HOWEVER…
As a biology teacher in training, there’s absolutely no ruddy way I would ever support creationism of any stripe being taught in public schools.
88% favour evolution only. Wow – didn’t know they were so enlightened in TX.
Regards,
David
89% a little more upwards creep and this poll can be considered crashed.
Apparently, this poll has already been decided…
“Woodstock of evolution? That’s how Nature descibes a meeting among sixteen leading biologists at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg, Austria, 10-13 July 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to go beyond the modern synthesis that has held evolutionary theory together for more than sixty years. This is necessary because the existing theory leaves much unexplained —
* “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land,” says Graham Budd, a palaeobiologist at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. “But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”
* Scott Gilbert, an evo-devo researcher at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania comments, “The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modelling the arrival of the fittest.”
The participants agreed that such shortcomongs must be carefully downplayed, because “creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism.” Apparently darwinism is still gridlocked and real reform is not imminent.Meanwhile, we noticed a couple of reported comments that are consistent with cosmic ancestry —
* Stuart Newman, a developmental biologist at New York Medical College, comments “You can’t deny the force of selection in genetic evolution, but in my view this is stabilizing and fine-tuning forms that originate due to other processes.”
* To explain the sudden appearance of turtles, Scott Gilbert suggested, “all the genes are probably there already….”
I really want to screw over a poll in the other direction one day just as a function of Poe’s Law/Ebert’s Fallacy. There was a poll recently where I said I was a Pentecostal Republican against abortion, for the Iraq war, and {I was voting for Obama and in favor of embryonic stem cell research and teaching evolution.} Only the parenthetical parts were true.
My above post is from:
http://www.panspermia.org {Cosmic Ancestry}
No “Creationism, pointing out weaknesses in ‘theory'”? Imagine that…
Captain Mike @ 4, sadly, this poll was linked to in the comments of a different Pharyngula post, so it began the Pharyngulization process before the current post. Unfortunately, I believe “evolution only” was a few votes below “evolution and creationism” when I last viewed the page.
I did my part. Now it’s at 91.9%! :)
#23: That would take a whole semester…
Been there, skewed that.
Evolution only (988, 92.2%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (25, 2.3%)
Evolution and creationism (37, 3.5%)
Creationism only (22, 2.1%)
:P
I got panspermia on yo momma. ahem.
Now that’s how you crash a poll, people.
Give yourselves a huge pat on the back.
Biznatch, I’m from Texas and I voted evolution.
I admire the fact of said theory a thousand times more than this state though :P
“The participants agreed that such shortcomongs must be carefully downplayed, because “creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism.” Apparently darwinism is still gridlocked and real reform is not imminent.”
WTF??
And they call themselves “scientists?”
They are a disgrace to the scientific method.
Yeah, I noticed that I could vote using both Firefox and IE browsers, then I noticed that every time I open the page in a new tab in Firefox that I can vote again. Probably b/c I have cookies blocked.
As a recent relocation to TX – the attempts to hijack the science curriculum down here are downright scary.
I’ve been involved with my kids education, but I worry that I’ll have to teach my kids, and correct, what they’re learning in school. Aarrrgh!
James
“Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory”
Maybe. Mayyyybe. Only if we then get to point out the huge, laughable weaknesses in every other “theory”. Hell, pointing out perceived weaknesses in evolutionary theory is all that the other side HAS. Perhaps that’s why when you think of the typical pro-con split – pro-evolution, con-evolution, pro-creation/ID, con-creation/ID – the fourth item always seems mysteriously left out.
93% evolution only after casting my vote.
Or as is sometimes uttered down here in the subject state: “Done went and voted.”
No kings,
Robert
McCain is trying to call off the debate. Just thought I’d mention.
(Chuckles…)
Ah yes. I see he’s saying he’s actually suspending his campaign… allegedly to devote more time to addressing the current economic crisis.
Well, I know, all the pundits are on about how this is just craven political posturing, an attempt to put the Obama campaign in a box, and most of all, change the subject, get the latest ugly revelations about his own campaign staff off the front page… But let’s give the ole’ guy the benefit of the doubt here… Take him at his word that, were he to continue campaigning, he couldn’t give proper attention to the economic crisis…
Umm… Well…
Well, Mr. McCain, if your campaign’s gonna keep you away from the economy, *please*, I implore you: keep campaigning.
Thanks, man.
Trending strongly in favor of Evolution Only.
Evolution only (1411, 93.7%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (31, 2.1%)
Evolution and creationism (40, 2.7%)
Creationism only (24, 1.6%)
Evolution only (1469, 93.8%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (32, 2%)
Evolution and creationism (41, 2.6%)
Creationism only (24, 1.5%)
I think that it should be evolution with it’s weaknesses. I think showing kids that there is a bunch of stuff that we just don’t know could inspire them to fill in the blanks. Science should be presented as it is-warts and all.
Jupiter, that’s what teaching evolution only does. They broke it into two possible answers because that’s a dishonest setup. Here’s how and why:
1) First it dilutes the “teach evolution” response, and is a straightforward dishonest tactic to try to lower the vote for teaching science.
2) Second it distorts science, and is a dishonest attempt to equate teaching science with religious indoctrination, by suggesting — not very subtly — that someone wants evolution taught as if it’s a final, be all and end all answer instead of an ongoing enterprise of testing and inquiry.
The first is the simple dishonesty of trying to get a certain religious doctrine taught in schools, and that’s bad, not to mention illegal (so far). But the second is even worse (and that’s saying something) because it’s an attempt to discredit all science. As we’ve seen, discrediting all science is a shared goal of the radical religions in the USA and some businesses (the tobacco companies are deep in this, as their memos and checks have shown). By discrediting science, they hope to be able to persuade people to vote for nonsense that science shows clearly is nonsense. Not just against evolutionary studies, but against stem cell research, against finding cancer links (there’s the tobacco company interest), against anti-global warming initiatives, against moratoriums on poorly thought out oil drilling, oil sands exploitation, non-testing of GMOs before widespread use, crappy forestry practices, pollution issues, you name it.
Gaming a poll by setting up two right answers, when they’re really the same answer, is a small part of this game. It’s a game being played out with our money and used against us, our children’s money and used against their future. Like litter, every little bit of this game-playing by these sad sacks hurts.
Evolution only (1705, 94.3%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (35, 1.9%)
Evolution and creationism (44, 2.4%)
Creationism only (25, 1.4%)
Looks like they shut down the poll. High five and great success for voting this thing off the charts!
Mike @41 it can still be found here:
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/
Shot down faster than a moose wearing lipstick.
If there were more than 120 votes, the people in rinky-dink Brownwood would know someone crashed the poll. I invite you to read any and all letters posted on the site and see what superior wisdom and homespun homilies we have to endure in Texas. SA majority of self-righteous knuckle-dragging mouthbreathers with quaintly insipid drawls, ya’ll.
I don’t know that a high school class is the best place to discuss the weaknesses in ANY theory. Save that stuff for sophomore and above college classes, for the people who will actually be working in that field. Your typical person, and especially your typical highschool kid, only needs a brief overview of what we know to work so they can get the general idea.
Up to 95% when I voted. Think the people who post online polls ever talk about them on the air? It would be funny to hear the commentary! :D
Jason, I do guest lectures for high schools occasionally and I am quite pleasantly surprised by how much some of these kids can grasp. If you get them to the point where they have enough factual basis to ask probing questions, I see no problem with it. I’ve had some pretty deep questions asked by seniors in high school. I think we shouldn’t baby the students as much as we do. I explained to my 8 year old cousin a few years ago how DNA polymerase III works and he explained it to his parents. If an 8 year old can understand DNA replication in that detail, why can’t a high school student?
Evolution only (2041, 95%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (37, 1.7%)
Evolution and creationism (45, 2.1%)
Creationism only (25, 1.2%)
The poll has been smashed to oblivion. Congrats all ;)
#9 wrote: “I think that it should be evolution with it’s weaknesses. I think showing kids that there is a bunch of stuff that we just don’t know…”
Points for future understanding are NOT weaknesses.
#45 wrote: “I don’t know that a high school class is the best place to discuss the weaknesses in ANY theory.”
Evolution does NOT have weaknesses. Research opportunities are NOT weaknesses.
Another poll pandering to creationism. What would one expect from Texas. Evolution is way ahead now.
Creationists wish evolution had weaknesses because evolution threatens their childish fantasy world.
Evolution does not have weakness for the same reason our planet’s orbit around the sun does not have weaknesses. Last time I checked, the earth was still circling the sun, and life was still evolving.
Mission accomplished.
How is horizontal gene transfer a weakness in the theory of evolution, and what is “and such”?
Read again what the quote from the unnamed scientist is, and what the panspermia ideologist has written around it. Then think again about who is a disgrace to the scientific method here.
There was at least one post on this blog about this utter non-Woodstock. Find it and read it.
1,973 voted to teach only science in a science classroom.
36 voted for letting incompetent creationist biology teachers lie to their students about science.
45 voted for teaching both science and magic in a science classroom.
25 voted for teaching only magic in a science classroom.
Total idiots who voted so far = 36+45+25 = 106.
Ha, and here I was coming to ask PZ if he would be making a stop in Austin any time soon. I promise Austin is NOTHING like the rest of TX. I think Dawkins enjoyed his time down here.
The final numbers:
Evolution only (2170, 95.1%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (40, 1.8%)
Evolution and creationism (46, 2%)
Creationism only (27, 1.2%)
Evolution only is at 95.1%
I love messin’ with polls.
2176 95.1% Evo.
27 1.2% gawd did it.
Evolution only (2322, 95.2%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (42, 1.7%)
Evolution and creationism (47, 1.9%)
Creationism only (27, 1.1%)
This seems to be the first time one of their polls broke 1000 votes. 500 votes if you exclude the Heath Ledger, Drinking Age, and Red Light Cameras votes.
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/content/poll/
You people are big bullies!
From the choices given it’s obvious that the poll was engineered to achieve a desired result. And you guys ruined it. I hope you’re proud of yourselves.
I voted but it’s still stupid. Science should be taught in science classes. The fact that these damn polls keep popping up on news websites is more disturbing than the potential results.
Perhaps we should have polls that list all the creation stories from various cultures/religions. At least there could be some good cultural benefits by potentially reducing ethnocentrism (I’m optimistic I know) and giving people the option to view various bits of mythology/theology from around the globe. The more exposure to other cultures could allow for more open minded discussion of other topics, especially science. Check out the following link(Scroll to the bottom for other POVs):
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm
Glen #12 – Regarding weakness in chemistry theory, I don’t think they have in mind an Intelligently Designed molecule theory alternative planned.
If there was a viable, testable alternative to evolution, it should be taught. Any alternatives out there? Hello ?! God, you there? Thought naught.
I’ll show you some intelligent design.
Notice how there was no “Creationism, pointing out weaknesses in theory” option?
I’ll go so far as to vote with each browser I use (IE 6 at work, Safari and Firefox at home), but I refuse to clear cookies to vote “often”. Still, if the creobots make a comeback I may have to modify my ethics to match theirs.
WTF! 28 people have voted for creationism only! Fine, if these people want to teach creationism in our schools, we need to propose teaching evolution in their churches. Seriously, just goes to show there are fellow citizens that have bazaar and scary connections formed in their head…
As of 7:25pm EST:
Evolution only (2598, 95.7%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (43, 1.6%)
Evolution and creationism (47, 1.7%)
Creationism only (28, 1%)
I wonder if the people who run these poor sites ever wonder why the hell their polls flip around all of a sudden, getting more votes than they probably have readers…
Evolution only (2618, 95.7%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (43, 1.6%)
Evolution and creationism (47, 1.7%)
Creationism only (28, 1%)
Well at least it didn’t take long.
@54, I was not talking about legitimate problems with the theory itself, more like specifics with need clarification. Horizontal gene transfer, for example is a weakness due to it’s ability to completely screw up phylogenies of prokaryotes. This is a problem with creating prokaryotic phylogenies, not necessarily a problem with the theory. The “and such” was included to illustrate others may exist. For example, I do know that the way we define a species leads to confusion among those unfamiliar with the difficulties of creating an accurate system of categorization that is useful.
“Seriously, just goes to show there are fellow citizens that have bazaar and scary connections formed in their head…”
Isn’t it interesting how a banana is designed to fit perfectly in the human hand? Huh? Ever ask yourself that? Huh? Have you?
Alex, that argument never ceases to send me to the ground laughing.
It is now over 95% for evolution only. I agree that when teaching evolution it must not be taught as dogma but needs to have the areas that are still in dispute discussed. But that is the case with all science, which is a constant work in progress. There is a paradox of knowledge that the more you know the more questions that knowledge raises.
Thank you, PZ. I’m sending the following to the Texas Citizens for Science list:
Evolution in Education Poll
3:20 p.m. CT when I wrote PZ Myers about the Abilene poll:
What do you think the appropriate lesson should be in public schools?
Evolution only (13, 19.7%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (6, 9.1%)
Evolution and creationism (33, 50%)
Creationism only (14, 21.2%)
PZ posted his message at 4:41 p.m. CT
6:35 p.m. CT, almost two hours after PZ Myer’s Pharyngula posted notice of the Abilene poll:
What do you think the appropriate lesson should be in public schools?
Evolution only (2663, 95.8%)[and still increasing every minute!]
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (43, 1.5%)
Evolution and creationism (47, 1.7%)
Creationism only (28, 1%)
Best comment: “I guess PZ does mess with Texas.”
Sticking it to a Creationist reporter: Priceless!
Evolution only (2739, 95.8%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (43, 1.5%)
Evolution and creationism (49, 1.7%)
Creationism only (28, 1%)
Wooooo!
Something you should know about Abilene (the “big country” that site refers to), I believe it has the most churches per block in Texas.
Neat, huh?
@#72 Alex,
Reading that post made me think of something. I don’t know why I never thought of this before, probably because I’m usually too busy, but if the banana was designed to fit perfectly to fit in the human hand, what does it say about the penis?
I don’t mean to give offence but for a man, it’s a logical jumping off point. Does that mean I’m supposed to handle it because He wants me to? What are the implications for women? Is that why the priesthood are supposed to be celebate? Okay, bad example. And aren’t most Creationists anti-masturbation too?
There are lot of ways this can go, some of them with very disturbing and funny endings! Perhaps we should get CNN to host a pole… I mean poll about the banana argument and it’s implications because then it would be important and stuff. It’s apparent that they really accomplish a lot and hosting poles… polls… is important.
Yes, of course talk about what is disputed because that would be interesting and educational, but for FSM’s sake don’t call disputes “weaknesses”. Saying that evolution has weaknesses is lying. Creationist retards translate weaknesses to mean evolution is false. They think evolution is false because they believe every species was magically created.
The basic facts of evolution are not disputed, but the creationists want students to think there’s some doubt about those facts. For example, they want students to doubt people and chimps share an ancestor. “Strengths and weaknesses” are just code words for “god-did-it”.
“evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory”
What weaknesses?
Those damned Jehova’s
WitlessWitnesses popped over again while I was outside tending the front garden. “Oh, the End Of Days™: are upon us!!!” They are so fixated on Armegeddon, and their confirmation bias seizes upon any little nugget that foreshadows their claim. These bastard’s bags are packed and they’re trying to convince ne to pack mine too. I try to be nice but firm and they look back at me with the blank uncomprehending eyes of a sheep. Just like creationist fundies everywhere, no sense of reality is needed or welcomed.It’s too bad that the final rapture is apochryphal. I wish all the religiotard fundies everywhere could just sublimate away to their final reward and leave the rest of us alone.
Voted for reality.
Currently results:
Reality (2879, 95.9%)
Accommodationism (44, 1.5%)
Reality & fantasy (50, 1.7%)
Fantasy (30, 1%)
(rounds to 100.1%)
BobC @ 79, I agree with you here, I consider the disputes weaknesses, but not weaknesses in the sense that they contradict, but weaknesses in the sense that they are areas for future research. As many people have pointed out, what most people call “weaknesses” are really not make-or-break for evolution as we currently understand it, but areas for research. In this, I am in agreement. I disagree that what we call it matters. I hate the idea of having to frame something so Joe Public can’t spin it to say it’s wrong and so his misogynistic creation story is right. For the record, I also consider it a weakness when the results of a paper haven’t been retested at least once by other scientists.
“Currently results” == “Current results”
Those are the choices. I would like them to tach evolution, sure. But evolution only what about math and art and music?
[/weak joke]
@ bonez
I wouldn’t call that option “accomodtionism”, it’s about as bad as the one after it.
E.V. @ #81
Reminds me of this. (from gisburne.com)
Let’s say there’s a dispute about how long ago the ancestors of people and chimps split apart. I don’t know if this is disputed or not, but let’s say some biologists estimate it was 5 million years ago, and other biologists estimate it was 6 million years ago. Is there any reason at all to call this dispute a “weakness”? I don’t think so. It’s not very important what it’s called, but I can’t imagine any situation where ‘weakness’ would be an appropriate word to use every time two biologists disagree about some minor detail of evolution.
Effectively:
Weaknesses == “doesn’t literally match the biblical account”
When evolution is taught in secondary schools you’re talking abut (at most) the following:
* Basic genetics: DNA/RNA as an encoding system for life
* Mutation and sexual crossing, introduction of new genes, basic mechanisms
* Limits of growth, competition
* Genes are thus passed through a filter => natural selection
* Sampling errors (genetic drift)
* Evidence for common descent: geological column, basic sysematics, fossil homologies, homologies of fossils of extinct life with existing life, genetic homologies
There isn’t really a lot in the way of weakness there, although as you get into the details there are of course different explanatory mechanisms for speciation and whatnot.
I think we should teach the weaknesses of creationism in church.
@ The Chemist [#85],
Maybe more like “Accommodationism, extra strength” & “Accommodationism, extreme school edition”. They’re both bad ideas, regardless.
BTW, your weak joke was rather humorous.
The areas that are in dispute are beyond the high school level of understanding, the basic principles are not under dispute. When they say “teach the weaknesses”, well we do; at a level where the person seeing the weaknesses won’t just assume it means that the worldview is flawed. By teaching “the weaknesses” in high school, it serves only to cast doubt in the minds of those who don’t understand it in the first place.
The high school classroom is not the place to debate science, the minds of those involved are not trained to be able to do that debate adequately. This is why the domain is in academia as opposed to the general population. And although anyone can contribute, it takes years of training and a brilliant mind to contribute anything of substance. High school children with just a few hours a week of training are quite simply not equipped to participate in the debate… of course those who want to teach the weaknesses know this and are using it as a mechanism to get people to shun evolutionary theory.
I picked b) evo with weaknesses, although I didn’t like the wording.
If they can find them, good. If not, then you get straight evo.
Saying ‘no dissent, no criticism’ (option a))would make me like the ID trolls, so that’s why I picked b). Evolution can certainly stand up to scrutiny, imo and emerge as the most likely and believable theory of how we all came to be.
E.V. @ #81
“It’s too bad that the final rapture is apochryphal. I wish all the religiotard fundies everywhere could just sublimate away to their final reward and leave the rest of us alone.”
..that is just about the most polite way I’ve ever heard of someone wishing fundies would just fuck off.
Up to 96%.
Hilarious. I hope they publish this or mention it on the news (the poll results that is). Not that it actually means it, but it would attract more people to our side (bandwagon advertising, a falacy but an effective one >.< ).
Tony @ 88, you raise a good point, I may actually concede this one to some degree. I still don’t think calling something a “weakness” means anything other than “something which can be improved.” It is possible, and I suspect likely, that the connotations I have associated with this word vary greatly from your own. When I think of a weakness, I think of it from an architectural standpoint (perhaps I do too much carpentry). This brings up another point, though. I think creationists clinch words and twist them to mean what they want them to mean through equivocation even if not overtly stated.
Evolution only (3185, 96%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (48, 1.4%)
Evolution and creationism (51, 1.5%)
Creationism only (32, 1%)
So that means Evolution only is winning by 24 fold over all others combined, nice!
Evolution only. But this question should be put to McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin. Especially the latter.
Did anyone notice the forums? There’s only two posts, but boy they are disappointing:
1: I was taught Darwin’s theory it did not turn me into an atheist. I think it should be taught as a theory, that is what it is, with flaws. The lesson usually turned into a class discussion and turning into Creationism anyway.
2: I think for a long overdue refreshing change, they should be taught the TRUTH of God’s creation of man!
If we came from apes, there wouldn’t still be apes. From fish, ditto!
I guess I should clarify: there are two replies in the post about evolution, this one- http://bigcountryhomepage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2391
#98, 3 have weighed in. Obama and Biden are both for evolution only. Palin is for both.
Darn! I forgot to cut and paste. Anyway, the standings after I voted had “evolution only” at 96.2% (I think 3634 voted). The other choices had single digit percentages and double-digit votes.
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/content/poll/
Poll Crashed!
I’ve been writing comments on that Abilene site and the Abilene Reporter News web site (reporternews.com) for a long time trying to keep the religious nuts on their toes. Abilene is home to three fundicolleges and a large Air Force population. It is a seething mess of god awfulness. It would be a great place for some of PZ’s missionaries to practice their thing. It is great fun but I could use some help.
Evolution only (3718, 96.4%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (49, 1.3%)
Evolution and creationism (57, 1.5%)
Creationism only (33, 0.9%)
I think we won.
Damn, ain’t much joy in hammering these small town polls.
Kinda like shooting moose from an airplane.
Your Opinion
Thank you for your vote.
Evolution in Education
What do you think the appropriate lesson should be in public schools?
Evolution only (3763, 96.4%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (50, 1.3%)
Evolution and creationism (57, 1.5%)
Creationism only (33, 0.8%)
View Other Polls
Drats!! Another poll foiled! And we would’ve gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling scientists and those crazy kids on those science blogs!!
Now that’s Power!
Dog dress the interwebs!
0.8%? Boy howdy.
“Damn, ain’t much joy in hammering these small town polls.”
Small town? SMALL? That’s Abilene, dood! The second-biggest town within 200 miles of here!
Go, Pharynguloids!
“Damn, ain’t much joy in hammering these small town polls.”
You’ll have to take my word for it when I say that if any small town deserves this, it’s Abilene.
You have no idea…
And you should be so thankful for that.
Holy shit! That’s my hometown! HA! Everytime Abilene gets any attention at all it’s bad, I swear.
You know what’s really weird about towns like Abilene though? They really think they are the only people who think clearly. I’ve seen it against churches from other towns even! Their one church is the only one that “does it right” in their view. It’s fuckin lame. Anyway, love that the poll was crashed! Good gob.
P.S. OctoberMermaid, are from around there? I mean your completely right I was just wondering if you were unfortunate enough to know by experience or you’ve just heard about how terrible it is?
If you guys are so smart and want to believe what the God hating scientists tell you than go ahead and burn in hell. Jesus loves you anyway if you would just open your harts. You prolly have never been taught the Gospel or had heathen parents. The Bible tells us where we came from our lord God a few thousand years ago, it says so in plain english. If we came from monkeys why don’t you show me a monkey turn into a man. Evolution is a tactic scientists use to make our kids hate God and to get God out of the schools so our children don’t learn the way to salvation. If evolution takes millions of years why don’t we see it happening today? We have opened billions of jars of peanut butter and no life just happened to already be in it. The fossils never show any sign of ducks with crocodile heads. There are fossils of dinosaur footprints with human footprints right beside it that were made during the great flood before the water got real high. There is plenty of evidence that we were created by God not Charles Dawkin, just look at a damn banana and see how perfect it is for a person to eat or practice fellatio.
Obvious Poe is obvious.
Ompompanoosuc, you know that if you can’t provide any physical evidence for your god that can be confirmed by scientists, magicians, and profession debunkers, you are just a delusional fool. Like anybody having trouble with reality, you should keep your delusions to yourself and not bother sane people with them.
While I agree it’s a poe, part of me hopes it’s not because that person would be the most awesome Christian ever (even surpassing Stephen Colbert)
Btw, how is the Chris Comer wrongful termination lawsuit going?
Word.
BTW, the poll is now gone, replaced with one on the Bush-bailout. The final vote count for the other poll was 4086 total, and “evolution only” was leading with ~96+% of the vote.
Actually, here’s the actual numbers, actually:
Evolution only (96.5%)
Evolution, pointing out weaknesses in theory (1.2%)
Evolution and creationism (1.4%)
Creationism only (0.8%)
Total votes: 4086
Now that is funny.
Currently at 4086 votes (more than 20 times the normal poll for that site), 96.5% for evolution only and the rest all less than 2% each except for creationism only at 0.8%.
To all who discussed the w/ weakness response. It appears that your opinion on this depends on how you interpret weakness. I agree with all those who did not choose w/ weakness based on how they defined weakness just as I agreed with those who did chose it based on their interpretation of weakness. That’s why I like mathematics–much less ambiguity.
@Ompompanoosuc: Really, aren’t cucumbers god’s chosen vegetable for man to practice fellatio with?
Mus (#99 & #100), this is my favorite creationist stupidity from bigcountryhomepage.com/forums:
Yeah, evolution takes more faith to believe it occurred than does the Creation account.
Right, evidence-free magical explanations are so much easier to believe than scientific explanations supported by evidence that’s been growing for 150 years. I guess it’s for a good reason the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education is a creationist retard.
BobC
I prefer the next line down!
“why would the entire sum of fossil evidence fit in the trunk of a compact car?”
To better serve the X-ian populous, we need an identifying symbol of your passionate love for your savior. To this effect, the following hand signal is to be adopted by all X-ians:
Hold your arm out in front of you, with your palm facing out, as if you were saying, “Talk to the hand, Satan!”
Now, point your index finger straight toward heaven (that’ll be you) and bend your thumb out (that’s the filthy, hitch-hiking atheist) so that you form a “J” for Jesus! To see it better, fold the three remaining fingers down.
Lastly, let Jesus guide your thoughts as you proclain to the world your devotion. Bring the back of your hand tight to your forehead, proudly stretching your “J” for Jesus, jump up and around and yell out!
Thank you for your cooperation in this. You will note how even the most rational of people are brought to the ground in convulsions when confronted with your jubilant faith.
*In remebrance of Ebert: yes, this is meant to be a joke.*
I was going to vote Creationism, but then I realize they weren’t going to teach it from a Viking point of view, so screw them, Odin rules!
So I voted evolution.
Look on the good side – only 45% think creation should be involved. That’s still way too high, but far from a majority.
I like the fact that they archive the results of the poll after it is over. So often the results of a Pharygulized poll just disapear. Just once I’d like to see one actually analyzed.
I am a vegetarian, hence I am against opening harts.
It appears to be closed with 94%, or 98%, wanting creationism only. Thank god I live in Austin.
Wow, I hadn’t noticed this before. A silly statement even if it’s in Nature and coming from a real paleobiologist. The only reason we even know that there was an ‘INVASION’ of the land is because of evolutionary theory!
I suppose that Budd means that since we don’t know the ‘evo devo’ of wings and legs, we don’t know anything. Sigh.
@113 Ompompanoosuc
If Jesus loves us all why are Jesus/God so readily able to send us all to hell? Slight contradiction there don’t ya think? Or perhaps your a friend of Poe? Your reply is so well written you could be a true fundie or a friend of Poe’s Law having fun. It’s so mind boggling it’s impossible to tell.
BTW, what about the penis? I’ve said it before! Lots of things can happen now that it’s apparent we have consent from above!
@131, I have met Graham Budd several times. I think that this is a quote out of context. I do not think that he would be saying that we ‘know nothing’ or even implies it. I do not know the reference to which you allude, but I would think that it has been misinterpreted.
The third commenter had this to say…
“The radical liberals have ruined the education system and they keep telling us all we need is a few more programs like “no child left behind” and a few more of your tax dollars to fund them and a few more administrators making over $200,000.00 per year”
Wait, isn’t “No Child Left Behind” one of Bush’s programs? Since when is he a “radical liberal”???
That’s a relief. The quote comes from the Nature news feature on the Altenberg conference.
I think they are on to us! the only poll I could find on that link was one asking about support for the “Bush Bailout Plan.” (Overwhelmingly against.)
The actual final poll results are:
Evolution only 96.5%
Creation only 0.8%
I don’t think this had too much to do with us though. The poll numbers for the Bush Bailout plan are almost identical with 96.5% opposed. Could it be that people are waking up a little even in places like Abilene?
Or maybe the cretins are so depressed by reality that they have just given up?
One can hope.
Poe who?
-pompy
p.s. I thought it would be more fun than it was.
I was going to vote wrecreation,but it’s not listed.
I only just saw this!
This comment IS a bit out of context, but what I meant was: of course we know a lot about the details both of the invasion of land and the origin of wings (and many other transitions). But what I said is that evolutionary _theory_ has had little to say about them. In other words, whilst we have excellent population level models for evolution, and we have excellent documentation of evolutionary transitions, what we do not have as yet are evolutionary theories that major transitions can be subsumed under. We only have scattered insights about the role of things like preadaptation (or exaptation, if you prefer!), modularity and redundancy and so on. Rather than being satisfied with just-so stories about “how the dinosaur got its wings” etc, I think it should be possible to construct more a more general theory of innovation that should have (for example) some elements of prediction and testability within it.