POLL: Allow Skeptics of Evolution in the Lab and Classroom
A new poll from One News Now shows that American believe skepticism in evolutionary theory is not a reason to remove a scientist from a lab or a teacher from the classroom.
Triggered by the article on Nathaniel Abraham, a creationist biologist who was fired from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, One News Now asked America whether skepticism in evolution should disqualify an individual from scientific research or teaching a biology class.
The answer was an overwhelming no. Over 95% of voters said that those who question Darwin should not be banned from scientific research or teaching biology. Less that 4% said they should. See the results for yourself here.
Obviously, reality is not something that can be determined by polls. If we were to poll Italians in 1420 about whether the sun went around the earth or the other way around, they probably would have gone overwhelmingly for the theory that has later proved to be wrong. They didn't know any better and the basic evidence from the senses was insufficient to make an accurate determination.
That said, I think in this case the will of the American people IS important and indeed reflects the underlying reality. Notice that Americans are NOT clamoring for their children to receive alternative viewpoints concerning the arrangement of planets in our solar system, but they ARE clamoring for alternate views about the origins of our baramin. Given all the enthusiasm in this country for ancestor research and family trees, you would think that if we REALLY DID descend from apes, Americans would be quick to embrace their long-lost ancestors. But no - by and large they're either reserving judgment or they're saying that they believe what was written in the Bible back when knowledge of the earth's origins was still fresh.
Discrimination
I agree - we darwin dissenters have been unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of our sensible philosophical position on this most important of matters.
The evolutionists say that they will not let us in until we have generated testable hypotheses based on ID. They ignore the fact that it is much harder to to make testable hypotheses concerning the work of an un-knowable intelligent designer. That sort of science needs to be given time to mature, however the darwinists seem to only want to stamp out our our research before it has had a chance to blossom.
I think it's time for people to call it like it is: There's a conspiracy against us. How else do you explain the fact that Darwinists sneer at our lack of peer-reviewed articles, but simultaneously refuse to review them? Does that seem like fair treatment to you? Not me!
HeLa