Posted on 03/08/2006 1:45:50 PM PST by rface
Education, church attendance, partisanship related to beliefs......
About half of Americans reject an evolutionary explanation for the origin of humans and believe that God created humans at one time "as is." Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe in the biblical view of the origin of humans than are those who do not share these characteristics.
.
March 8, 2006
WASHINGTON -- A Gallup Poll released Wednesday suggests about 53 percent of Americans rejects the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of humans.
Instead, they believe God created humans at one time "as is," the survey showed.
53%: ... of Americans rejects the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of humans.
31%: ..... of respondents said they believe humans evolved, but God guided the process.
1.2%: ..... said they believe the scientific theory of evolution and "God had no part."
(Excerpt) Read more at poll.gallup.com ...
Sorry, but your post does not seem to involve any rational argument.
Are you saying that Mrs. Ples is a monkey? I presume you have evidence for this. Are you familiar with the skull (or cast, as the actual fossils are hard to access)? Have you ever handled it? Compared it with other casts ranging from modern apes through fossil man to modern man?
Or have you just popped into a few creationist websites and stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?
The evidence tells us that evolution, the common ancestry of species, occurred. The details of how and when etc. will be argued until the day we invent a Wayback machine, but the fact that it occurs can be accepted beyond any reasonable doubt. These threads are normally about whether this is a true fact or not, instead of discussing the fine points about it.
Funny that you mention one science (plate tectonics) that's never managed to predict anything with any degree of accuracy ever, that's how it goes with young sciences.
Plate tectonics predicts matching geological strata on continents that have separated. Those things are found, and no doubt other predictions as well that I'm not familiar with. PT should predict that we will find certain evidence, and that we will not find other evidence. If we find these things true, then PT has successfully predicted evidence in advance which is how it comes to be accepted as true.
And you know that because .... ?
At 1.3%??!!!
Except amoung the statiscally challenged (which is seemingly a trait of Darwinists) such a miniscule precentage is not an indicator of "withstanding challenge" that would withstand and genuine peer review.
Wow, great post. Thank you for posting that.
I read your comments the same way that narby has. Perhaps you might want to clarify what you mean and expres it better, rather than just throw up your hands when someone misunderstands you, if indeed they have.
Those who are statistically challenged might take the fact that the %1.3 were merely those who accepted evolution and believed that God had nothing to do with it. Those who are statistically challenged would skip right over the %31 who accept evolution, but thought God did have something to do with it.
As for the number who don't accept evolution, I'm sure you'll find a similar number believe in Ghosts, the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon and the Loch Ness monster. I'm not in that group. Are you?
People have a hard time accepting that their existence is just the result of a very big accident. It is impossible to build any rational society or morality on a foundation of meaninglessness. If you don't believe me, look at the melt-down in Europe, home of The Absurd.
[Boy, that sentence didn't make any sense. Feel free to ignore it]
I'm in the spelling-challenged group.
Yet Darwinism, or Darwinistic Evolution is a very specific term. And just about everybody disagrees with it.
I respect others' religious beliefs, but I don't think they give you an excuse to cut classes.
In particular, I don't care if a person is a Christian Scientist. He still has to learn the germ theory of disease.
I believe Mormons have to learn the history of preColumbian America as reconstructed by historians. I don't care that it contradicts their scripture.
I don't care if your parents are Commies. You still have to learn about the free market.
I don't care if you're Amish. You still need to know the basics of electricity.
Ditto with evolution. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, you still need to know the ToE, learn some of the evidecnce that has convinced virtually all biologists to accpt it, and also study some of the phylogenies.
LOL. Yeah, whatever.
At 1.3%??!!! Except amoung the statiscally challenged (which is seemingly a trait of Darwinists) such a miniscule precentage is not an indicator of "withstanding challenge" that would withstand and genuine peer review.
Excuse me, but you have no room to be calling anyone "statiscally [sic] challenged" when you can't even properly read the original article and get the right numbers from it.
The one figure you're quoting is actually 1.2%, not "1.3%" as you cited. But that's not the right figure to use anyway. Even according to the article you're trying to use for your figure, support for evolution stands at 32.2%, not "1.3% [sic]".. Read the categories again and take another stab at it until you can do the math right... Until then, don't accuse *us* of being "statiscally [sic] challenged".
But the bigger problem is that there's a serious typo in the article which started this thread, so I'm pinging everyone who has posted to the thread in order to make sure they see the correction.
The actual percentage that Gallup got for the "naturalistic evolution" question is 12% (twelve), not 1.2% as was incorrectly claimed in the article. The decimal point does NOT belong there. I logged onto the Gallup site to get the figures direct from the source.
This brings the total of respondents who accept some type of evolution to 43%. That's actually a pretty respectable showing, for reasons I gave in post #47.
And since a number of people have wondered, here are the actual questions asked during polling:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATED: human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process, human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process, or God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it]?
Ping to the correction in post #135.
The gaping hole in your desperate hand-waving is that I know many people who would gladly select that choice as their answer to the polling question, yet who very much are "Darwinists" and very much NOT fans of "ID".
Yet Darwinism, or Darwinistic Evolution is a very specific term. And just about everybody disagrees with it.
Keep believing that if it gives you comfort, as it clearly does. I won't try to disappoint you with reality.
Thanks. How the Hell can someone make a mistake like that?! Don't they have proofreaeders?
Thanks for doing the homework.
Now the question is, was the typo deliberate?
I got it using the same method the AP uses when polling... I pulled the number out my ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.