98% of Texas Science Professors Reject ‘Intelligent Design’

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
Science • Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 9:53 am PST • Views: 251

As we noted recently, the Texas State Board of Education has appointed three “intelligent design” creationists to a six-member committee that will review the state’s science curricula for public schools, two of them affiliated with the Discovery Institute—and these two just happen to be authors of an anti-evolution book that the Institute is trying to sneak into science classes, Explore Evolution.

But a new survey shows that about 98% of Texas biology professors reject the “intelligent design” scam.

Moments ago, the Texas Freedom Network posted to its Web site a study conducted by Dr. Raymond Eve, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Texas at Arlington, titled Evolution, Creationism & Public Schools: Surveying What Texas Scientists Think about Educating Our Kids in the 21st Century. It reveals the results of a survey sent to biology and ”biological anthropology“ faculty members from ”all 35 public universities plus the 15 largest private institutions in Texas,“ in which they were asked to take the following taste test: evolution or intelligent design? As Eve writes in the introduction, the reason for the survey was simple:

”In the spring of 2009, the Texas State Board of Education will vote to adopt new curriculum standards for the teaching of science in grades K – 12 in Texas public schools. (These guidelines are formally known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS.) Many observers, both within Texas and around the country, anticipate a vigorous push by certain interest groups to make the debate over the Texas science curriculum the latest front in the running battle over evolution.“

So Eve, and the TFN, wanted to see where educators stood on the issue. Oof the 1,019 faculty members to whom the surveys were sent, 464 responded — and fewer than 1 percent checked off the box marked, “Modern evolutionary biology is mostly wrong. Life arose through multiple creation events by an intelligent designer, although evolution by natural selection played a limited role.” In other words: Do the evolution. Now might be a good time to re-read Jesse Hyde’s March 2008 cover story on the subject.

(Hat tip: Killgore.)

UPDATE at 11/18/08 10:01:41 am:

Here are the complete results from the PDF file linked above:

89.7%
“Modern evolutionary biology is largely correct in its essentials, but still has open questions for active scientific research.”

8%
“Modern evolutionary biology is correct in some respects. While further scientific research will require some major alterations to current theory, these advances will not invoke intervention by any supernatural agent.”

1.4%
“Modern evolutionary biology is right about the common ancestry of all extant organisms, but it is necessary to supplement it by invoking periodic intervention by an intelligent designer.”

0.9%
“Modern evolutionary biology is mostly wrong. Life arose through multiple creation events by an intelligent designer, although evolution by natural selection played a limited role.”

0.0%
“Modern evolutionary biology is completely wrong. Life was created essentially as we see it today.”

Advertisement

287 comments

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Tackling pithy conundrums.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

MikeySDCA
China Is Culturally Superior to America - the Atlantic Wire
2 minutes ago
Views: 6 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
'I Was Looking Forward to a Quiet Old Age': Instead, Etta Shiber, Helped Smuggle Stranded Allied Soldiers To Freedom
5 hours, 33 minutes ago
Views: 71 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
13 hours, 14 minutes ago
Views: 107 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
14 hours, 6 minutes ago
Views: 124 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
18 hours, 37 minutes ago
Views: 236 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
1 day, 18 hours ago
Views: 459 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: -5

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
1 day, 19 hours ago
Views: 229 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
1 day, 21 hours ago
Views: 300 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
1 day, 21 hours ago
Views: 524 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Curt
Brian Banks: (Video) Falsely accused of rape speaks out
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 276 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

 Frank says:

I feel it's better to sing about these things ourselves and perform them with the people who it happened to than to have some journalist one day say 'then in 1971, one time when they were at the mudshark hotel...' But people have problems with things of a glandular nature in connection with things of a musical nature. They say why, music is way up here, and glands are way down there and they can't get 'em together, but then they are hypocritical because they take a band that doesn't sing about such things directly and couches their language a little and does it with a little choreography and say that that's great and that's real rock and roll. I maintain that there's no difference, we're just honest enough to get up and say 'this is this and that's that and here you are and respond to it' and the response is 'why... I'm hip, but of course I am offended'.