stand up for REAL science

No stranger to quote-mining, the Discovery Institute now seems bent on living up the statement, "lies, damned lies, and statistics." In their latest Zogby poll, the DI has treated survey design and analysis with all of the care and caution we've come to expect from those who regularly distort the words of scientists to further their political and cultural goals.

The Washington Post's "On Faith" section notes that

A new poll just in time for Darwin's 200th birthday (Feb. 12) claims that even liberals support the idea that students need to hear "both sides" of Darwin's Theory of Evolution -- the "strengths and weakness" -- and therefore would support so called "academic freedom" legislation that requires science classrooms be open to all views of creation.

Except . . . that the survey questions were written along the lines of "Do you support our current, government-endorsed practice of teaching kids to smoke cigarettes at the age of three?"

Yes, the poll is that dishonest. More after the jump.

The Zogby poll used the following script in gathering their data:

QUESTION: I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin's theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view -- Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

As noted at the Post, Statement B assumes that scientific evidence against evolution exists, and Richard Dawkins does an admirable job of eviscerating the phrasing:

"It is indeed a stupid poll," Dr. Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionary biologist (and On Faith panelist) told me in an email. "Actually I think I'd say a dishonest poll -- because the QUESTION PRESUMES that there is scientific evidence against evolution. Of course, if we have a theory where there is evidence for and against, it would be ridiculous to teach only the evidence in favour.

"Now, if there really is evidence against evolution, the Discovery Institute should go into the laboratory, or the field, and find it, and publish it in the scientific journals. Instead, they mislead the public, by phrasing a question which presumes that there is evidence against."

Unfortunately, the Zogby group has a history of push-polling using this same exact question, as noted by Chris Mooney back in 2003:

Which of the following comes closest to your own opinion? A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Why would the Discovery Institute entrust their data-gathering to a group already well-known for these questionable practices? To echo Dawkins, why does the Discovery Institute base their policies on data from the dubious Zogby polls instead of real, actual data from research laboratories?