[txrefugee]

Who do you believe, God or unbelievers? Christians believe God’s Word. He does not lie.

[OldPossum]

Good ol’ AP, mixing in the myth of global warming with real accepted scientific findings such as the age of the Earth and the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the universe. Pure sophistry.

[SampleMan]

Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they express bigger doubts as concepts that scientists consider to be truths get further from our own experiences and the present time, an Associated Press-GfK poll found.

The more scientists rely on conjecture, the less they rely on science. Why is it therefore surprising that a scientists conjectures are less believed than science?

[I want the USA back]

The “big bang” did not create the universe. Assuming it is true, the “big bang” is the result of the creation of the universe.

The “big bang” theory is not an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe.

[Tax-chick]

If you have to “believe” in something, because it cannot be demonstrated by repeated, independent experiments, then the issue is faith, not science.

[exDemMom]

Evolution is a well-understood factor of biology, which affects all life and will continue to shape life for as long as life continues.

The Big Bang is inferred through observations of the universe. I am not a physicist; I have no idea whether the observational basis of the Big Bang is anywhere close to the evidentiary support of on-going evolution.

The estimated age of the earth is based on pretty solid physical observations. Some things, like the rate of radioactive decay, are constant.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on the behavior of CO2 fluorescence in the infrared range. I have not heard any really satisfactory explanation of how this fluorescence is supposed to heat up the entire atmosphere, or seen any observational/experimental data to indicate that this is happening. The majority of scientific publications that “demonstrate” AGW are speculations about future calamities that will happen if AGW continues. Speculations, of course, do not demonstrate anything.

So, the evidentiary basis of all of these scientific theories is of various levels of reliability, with evolution probably having the most solid basis and AGW having almost no basis.

[jjotto]

hehe

Dumba** liberal arts graduates at AP. Every scientist understands that the Big Bang theory might be wrong and a better explanation found. Not so with anthropogenic global climate change! That means that ACC is not at all like the Big Bang Theory; anthropogenic climate change is simply another religious faith which must stand despite contradictory facts or better alternatives

[CaptainK]

Why would anyone question any aspect of a scientific theory when scientists are never wrong?

[EricT.]

I can’t think of a more irrelevant, unanswerable question than that.

[PeterPrinciple]

And they want to tell us science is science, not opinion.................

[SES1066]

There is a major fault line at the intersection of Science, Politics and MSM which has a factor in this survey results. MSM thrives on sensationalism and urgency, especially in the era of such multitudinous information sources. Politicians have causes, constituencies and careers to maintain, none of which requires consistency, facts or real-world validation. Science, true Science, is the province of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, where proper review and tests like Popper's 'Falsification' are used as honest tools and consensus is frequently a long-term agenda.

When dealing with the 'public', there are several gradations of knowledge and interest. There is, at the base, the sub to barely literate whose 'knowledge' comes from their locality and society. Up from that base comes the various levels of literacy user; popular media imbiber, the reader and the scholar.

The latter two of the above, once past adolescence, can name multiple times when popular media and political causes have trumpeted urgent needs requiring immediate remedy. While sometimes valid, far more have been wrong and quickly forgotten by their advocates. When the subject of the exercise can be made 'scientific', it frequently derives from an initial thesis that can be seized upon to motivate a political process.

So, for this survey to highlight skepticism about such issues, points more to an experience history rather than lack of knowledge IMHO. Besides, consider the three items listed here and think what difference does opinion matter to their existence or validity. The Big Bang theory affects almost no ones personal life outside astrophysics, while Evolution is more of a religious and school issue dealing with affected parents and academia.

Only human-caused global climate change affects our every-day living and political thought. The EPA and the ecology lobby have increased our energy costs in almost every way. In the years since Senator Gore's infamous 1988 Potemkin Village-type Senate Hearing, we have had constant drum-beats for carbon taxes, third-world subsidies as well as US Government subsidies (taxpayer dollars) towards 'energy conservation', ethanol production and the like.

So, to be skeptical of political campaigns and wary of expensive projects for rather nebulous results is not, in my opinion, a bad thing, not at all!

[minnesota_bound]

This could have been the cause of the big bang...
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/2l5a-ptfJI4/maxresdefault.jpg

[GreenHornet]

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Dinner and a couple of drinks.