In English, our class had to choose a book that was/is banned and/or censored, and argue for or against banning it. I chose Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life", as I have thought it to be a good read.

In writing my essay, I decided to interview some kids at my high school as to what they think. I was just wondering what people would say. Surprisingly, even the most astout creationist believes that it shouldn't be banned, and says that even though it is "wrong", everyone should be able to read anything.

So here's my little survey of sorts. I'd like to see what people on here respond to the questions I pose. It will really help my essay out and be an interesting experience. Note that I do not want a fight over creationists and darwinists, or if someone posts as an athiest a Catholic talks trash about them. All I'd like are your genuine responses.

1: What do you classify yourself religiously as?
2: Have you ever read "On The Origin Of Species"?
3: What do you know factwise about the Theory of Evolution?
4: What is your opinion on the theory?
5: Do you think the book should be banned and/or censored?
6: Why or why not?
7: What do you think of those who support/oppose banning the book? Are their arguments well thought out or don't make sense? (If you support banning the book, then talk about those who oppose it, and vice versa)

Thank you to all who do reply to this and to hopefully no religious war here.

Sure, I'll help you out on this one (I am a teacher after all, helping in this sort of thing is quite literally my job).  And I agree, no arguments.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

1: What do you classify yourself religiously as?
A Protestant Christian, though I do not go to Church.

2: Have you ever read "On The Origin Of Species"?
No, though I may some day.

3: What do you know factwise about the Theory of Evolution?
I like to think I have a grasp of the general idea.

4: What is your opinion on the theory?
It makes sense to me.  There seem to be a LOT of fossils and remains of extinct species.  Many are suspiciously close to creatures still around today.  That species change over time seems to fit the available evidence.

5: Do you think the book should be banned and/or censored?
No.

6: Why or why not?
I am firmly against censoring anything scientific/religious/political, etc.  Maybe certain ideas are harmful to the young, and in this case I agree to censorship.  Adults, though, should have access to everything.

7: What do you think of those who support/oppose banning the book? Are their arguments well thought out or don't make sense? (If you support banning the book, then talk about those who oppose it, and vice versa)
We live in a democracy.  The MAJORITY decide right and wrong, good and bad.  If the majority say "Evolution is okay", then it is.  If the majority say "evolution is wrong" then it is.  If a book is banned, then the majority do NOT see it, and so no decision can be reached on the ideas it contains.  Those who wish to censor The Origin of the Species are denying the majority their right to decide freely and openly.  Regardless of their arguments, I cannot support such un-democratic actions.

Hope that helps!

1) I usually avoid labels, but if I have to assume one I usually call myself an agnostic theist. Like Trykon, I believe that the divine is inherently unknowable, although I do believe that something greater exists or existed. What that something is, however, and how or even if they interact with us, is unfathomable.

2) Yes.

3) The theory of evolution, or the theory of natural selection? Theories of evolution have been around for thousands of years. Darwin just took the ideas of his forebearers quite a bit further. Trykon summed things up quite well though, although it is important to note that evolution through a Darwinian framework is both random and non-teleological.

4) Like any scientific theory, the premises laid out in The Origins of Species have been examined, altered, and added too over the years. Obviously Darwin didn't understand the actual mechanism of evolution--that is, to say, genetics--and the fairly modern discovery of DNA has been incorporated quite successfully into Darwin's original theory, which is extremely comprehensive in and of itself. I'd say the question of whether or not evolution through natural selection occurs is moot at this point; nearly all scientists agree that it does. The real questions now lie in the specifics of how and why.

5) No.

6) I've been raised and conditioned in a society that has traditionally and historically valued free speech quite highly, and for what I would say are some very good reasons. Beyond that, or maybe because of that, I believe deeply that censorship is wrong on a moral, ethical, and intellectual level.

7) In all honesty I don't give them much thought. I understand the urge and drive to protect certain age groups from what some might consider to be 'dangerous' ideas, but that excuse only works in limited cases. I find other individuals to be closed-minded and bigoted, and therefore unworthy of any attempts to reason. Others have different motivations, both logical and illogical. Truthfully, I'm a very big fan of "you do your thing and I'll do mine." I try very hard not to judge anyone or their beliefs, although certain people make this a very difficult task by shoving them in my face.

Thanks to all who responded. I believe that should be enough.

For anyone who is interested, in the introduction to the Origin of Species, Darwin says that 1) errors have crept in and 2) it isn't a fully complete work as his health is failing and was urged by his collegues to publish what he has so far.