tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (04/21/84)
#N:uiucuxc:38800002:000:6449
uiucuxc!tynor Apr 21 14:07:00 1984
-------------------------------------------------
RESULTS FROM THE RECENT CREATION/EVOLUTION SURVEY
-------------------------------------------------
Here is an updated posting of the survey recently taken of net.misc
readers.
1) Do you believe that creationism should be taught on an
"equal time" basis with the scientific theory of evolution.
NO: 23 (88%)
YES: 3 (12%)
2) Have you read any of the standard creationist literature?
(ie. Evolution-The Fossils Say No!, Scientific Creationism)
NO: 18 (69%)
YES: 8 (31%)
An interesting observation: The 3 respondents who felt that creation
should be taught on "equal time" with evolution had *not* read any
of the creationist literature...
3) What is your educational background? (Geology, chemistry,
computer science...) Level of degree (BS,MS,PhD,...)
A wide variety here. Associate Degree: 1
Bachelor's : 11
Master's : 8
Ph.D : 6
A pretty good scatering of disciplines too: Geology, Astrophysics,
Chemistry, Physics, Computer Science, Theology(!), Psychology,
Applied Electronics, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering.
4) What is your religious affiliation? (If any)
No religious affiliation: 9 (35%)
Atheiest/Agnostic : 5 (19%)
Catholic : 3 (12%)
Episcopalian : 1 ( 4%)
Unitarian : 1 ( 4%)
'Christian' : 3 (12%)
Congregational : 1 ( 4%)
Zen Buddhist : 1 ( 4%)
Jewish : 2 ( 8%)
Another (perhaps not so) interesting observation: The two who felt that
creation should get "equal time" both professed religious affiliation
(not atheistic/agnostic...). I'll include their responses to question 1:
>> 1) Do you believe that creationism should be taught on an
>> "equal time" basis with the scientific theory of evolution.
>>
>> Depends on the individual school. I wouldn't expect an
>> unbiased class of religion at BYU. A good class should
>> present facts to the students for and against all current
>> theories and let the student decide which theory is best.
>> I suppose, then, my answer is Yes. Note, however, that
>> I support the theory of evolution; it seems to be the best
>> supported by evidence, and it does not conflict with any
>> doctrine of my faith. Funny one of your questions wasn't
>> "Do you support evolution/creation/???"
>>
[ My comments: The question is: Is creationism a 'current theory' in
the scientific community? The answer: No! Besides, is it really
responsible to ask young students to evaluate data, and choose a best
theory? If I asked a group of 6th graders to choose between Newtonian
Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, which would they choose? Quantum
theory is highly non-common-sensical (can you imagine an electron
actually having a small probability of jumping through a wall?!?!?)
I imagine that they'd reject the theory.
This isn't how science is done. A sixth grader is not trained
to evaluate every scientific theory out there. That's what the
scientific community is for. Until a significant number of practicing
geologists, physisists, biochemists, astronomers, etc. accept the
outrageous claims made by the creationists, creation cannot be considered
a 'current theory'.]
>> To answer your questions:
>> 1) Yes, creationism should be taught on an
>> "equal time" basis with the scientific theory of
>> evolution. The key word there is "theory;" we really
>> have no way of insuring its accuracy even though
>> the evidence seems to lean in its direction.
>>
[ My comments: The theory that the earth is round is 'just a theory'
(albiet well supported...) Some (the Flat Earth Society) maintain that
there is also evidence that the earth is flat. This too is 'just a
theory'. But are they really equal?]
Here are a couple of other responses that I thought were worthy of
including:
>> 1. Equal Time? No. Mentioned as an issue? Sure. I don't
>> expect the educational system to ignore authorities
>> on any subject. In this case authorities are in the
>> scientific community. Education at the lower levels
>> is not a search for the truth but a presentation of
>> the "facts" as the "authorities" see them, i.e. what
>> society believes to be true. I would no more expect
>> that our kids be taught creationism on an equal-time
>> basis than for a third century, or even a fourteenth
>> century kid to learn that the earth is round.
>>
>> 2. Read any of the standard creationist literature? No.
>> Nor do I read much on the other side of the issue
>> either. I find the evolutionary evidence more interesting
>> and hence more enjoyable to read. Pro-creationism
>> articles have not been convincing to me.
>>
>> My personal conviction is that:
>> 1. Evolution theories make more sense of the available
>> evidence, and are more plausible.
>>
>> 2. There is no PROOF for either case - can't be, won't
>> be any. But the arguments on both sides make for
>> some interesting readnews'ing when i have the
>> time (not often).
>>
>> 3. The truth of the matter, Evolution or Creationism,
>> would not affect my life or how I live it, should
>> the truth (somehow) become known. (I know it's
>> already revealed to us :-))
>> To answer your survey questions in order.
>>
>> 1) I can't see any reason creationism should be taught as a
>> scientific doctrine in the schools. What is needed is a commentary
>> on the philosophical implications of the big bang couterposed with
>> the various religious conceptions. Science is Science and Philosopy
>> is not. Drawing a distinction between the two would be most useful
>> in this context.
>>
>> 2) No, I haven't bothered to read any of the creationist literature
>> although I have a feeling for their arguments.
>>
>> 4) I am currently not affiliated with any organied religion
>> nor do I privately adhere to a canonized set of beliefs. However,
>> I was brought up in a Judeo-Christian (Mormon) religious mileu which
>> I'm sure certainly flavors my worldview.
>>
Steve Tynor
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor
University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana