On May 4th of this year Science Daily ran a story about how students, going into college, views on evolution are directly affected by their high school biology teachers. However about two thirds of students from each group stated that their high school biology class did not mention creation and only presented evolution. The interesting thing I noted in this story was the fact that in most cases where the students did get exposed to creationism, the students were more likely to accept creationist views going into college.

Why do you suppose that students who got exposed to both views were more likely to accept creationism than evolution?  And do you think that the laws should allow both views to be taught side by side? If so why?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501123336.htm

Imbedded links are in "bold red or blue" type.

Thus, in a significant proportion of high school biology classes, it's often a case of the blind leading the blind.>>

I find it interesting that you include all of the disqualifying factors in with those who actually teach creationism. What I mean is that you should note that it didn't say that "the 25% that do not know it was unconstitutional," actually taught creationism. Likewise it didn't say that the one third who never majored in or studied evolution, taught creationism. So if out of those two groups there were high school biology teachers who only taught evolution...would you still claim they were the blind leading the blind? Or is this a clear cut case of your personal bias kicking in? 

Finally let me point out to you once again that none of this has any baring on the fact that in those cases (blind or not) where students were exposed to creationism most of the students accepted creationism. This seems to be implying that when students are fairly presented with both sides of the issue in the class room, that the most logical choice wins out.

Imbedded links are in "bold red or blue" type.

<<I find it interesting that you include all of the disqualifying factors in with those who actually teach creationism. What I mean is that you should note that it didn't say that "the 25% that do not know it was unconstitutional," actually taught creationism. Likewise it didn't say that the one third who never majored in or studied evolution, taught creationism.>>

This is absurd, since there were obviously no specific data presented to address these particular hypotheticals. Therefore, you can speculate and make up any scenario you wish. IMO, your assertion is ludicrous--it stands to reason that teachers with little or no training in biology are the ones who are far more likely to be presenting creationism as if it was legitimate science, than would those who are trained, a nd therefore have a better understanding of the difference between science and non-science. Moreover, these days, one would be very hard pressed to find ANYONE who teaches evolution in school to NOT know that teaching creationism is unconstitutional--unless they just arrived here from another planet. But of course this is just a distraction from my main point (which you ignored), which was that you misrepresented what the study said, in order to try to make it appear that all other things being equal (which they're not) creationism wins out in head-to-head competition with evolution for the minds of high school students. The apparent "popularity" of creationism has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be a component of science instruction. Examined using the more appropriate lens of scientific legitimacy, it is not. The purpose of education is to overcome ignorance and superstition, not to support and validate them.

<<...none of this has any baring on the fact that in those cases (blind or not) where students were exposed to creationism most of the students accepted creationism...>

Nice that you recognized this--but only after you made your irrelevant point.

<<This seems to be implying that when students are fairly presented with both sides of the issue in the class room...>>

No, no, no, Brad, you've returned to your misleading statement which I attacked in the first place--the article you cited CLEARLY STATED that creationism was preferred WHETHER OR NOT evolution was taught alongside, therefore your conclusion is bogus. Other factors are clearly involved in the result--habit, prior upbringing of the students, their home environment, peer pressure, their parents' perceived wrath, whatever. Moreover, in those possible cases where the two WERE taught side by side (the article gave no data on what proportion of them that was--50%? 10%? 0.001%???), we have no way of knowing whether it was done completely free of bias or ridicule of one vs the other, IOW, it is impossible for us to know whether both were taught objectively and fairly. So, your conclusion, based as it is on your preconceived beliefs about creationism, rather than any specific data presented in the report, is little more than wishful thinking.

<<...However Intelligent Design does not violate constitutional laws...>>

A flat-out wrong statement. The Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board precedent correctly recognizes intelligent design as nothing more than Biblical creationism in a "Nu & Impruved" wrapper. As such, just like creationism, it does indeed violate the establishment clause, and is thus, just as unconstitutional as creationism was found to be. In his decision, Justice Jones made specific and explicit note of the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover School Board's position and their pathetic attempts to defend it as being legitimate science--You well know this decision, Brad, why do you ignore it and pretend it does not exist?

RE<<The Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board precedent correctly recognizes intelligent design as nothing more than Biblical creationism in a "Nu & Impruved" wrapper. >>

A wrongful finding that will be overturned when the courts reassess ID next to their own legal definition of "religion." They will see that ID does not violate the establishment clause of the constitution.

>>Why do you suppose that students who got exposed to both views were more likely to accept creationism than evolution?<<

You are misinterpreting the article.  It said "those who took biology with creationinsm (with or without evolution) were more likely to accept creationsim.  BUT it said, "those who were more likely to take biology with evolution, were more likley to accept evolution"

All this means is that if you were taught christianity at home you are likely to accept christianity, if you were taught atheism at home you are likely to accept atheism, and if weren't taught any of them at home you aren't likely to accept christianity or atheism ;o)

>>And do you think that the laws should allow both views to be taught side by side? If so why?<<

In college, I don't care if they have evolution, creationism or a hy-brid IF a student is willing to pay and take that particular class.  The problem I find between evolution and creationism is the "testing" that's required not to prove its existance, as you can't test something that doesn't exist, but how and why it does what it does. Those who try to use "evolution" to prove the existence of it, are just as nutty as those why try to use "creationism" to prove there's a christian god.

A puppy comes from a dog...big whoop.  The real test is whether or not the puppy evolves into a dog!  If it does, then evolution is at play.  If it doesn't, well I guess you can "create" another one.

Brad

I will attempt to answer your questions in separate paragraphs.

"I wonder if by evolve, you just mean observed changes in populations over time, or do you mean God created the first single cell and life took off from there and evolved to its current observed state of today?"

I mean God by whatever appellation people want to use created the building blocks of life, brought them together and the first primitive mono cell life came about. This was allowed to branch out through it's various stages and forms to become what it will(observed changes if you like).

"This is what some call adaptation, and it very well explains the survival of the species but it can't explain the existence of the species."

Life can and does adapt to it's environment and while yes that will ensures the continuation of that species, you are correct in saying that, that alone does not explain the why's of a species.

"Evolutionists believe that all organisms can be traced backwards to one biological living organism."

There always is a starting point. But is what they say the actual starting of life or just the limit of their ability to explain it at the time.

"Creationists believe that God created the original kinds to each reproduce after their own kind, and small changes can occur in these "kinds" to insure their survival, but they never become some other kind."

I believe that would go back to the adaptation question. But you are correct, a dog does not become a tree. However, we are not advanced enough yet to properly explain or fully understand it. Only human arrogance could assume that we are.

"The "blind luck" theory that you mentioned is exactly what many postulate has happened and they have managed to hoist their purely naturalistic theology upon the unsuspecting public"

That would be the response when they find themselves at the limits of their intellectual training. However as you stated, that answer does not really answer anything at all. I guess you could call it a 'yikes' way of saying 'Danged if I know', without appearing to be lost for an answer.

All good Blessings on You

Eldon