Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)

BP News (Baptist Press) ^ | October 19, 2005 | Michael Foust

[GretchenM]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A majority of adults support the biblical account of creation according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- the latest in a series of polls reflecting Americans' tendency to reject secular evolution.

In the poll, 53 percent of adults say "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." Another 31 percent believe humans "evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided" the process. Twelve percent say humans "have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God has no part."

The poll of 1,005 adults, conducted Sept. 8-11 and posted on Gallup's website Oct. 13, is but the latest survey showing Americans tend to reject a strictly secular explanation for the existence of life:

-- A Harris poll of 1,000 adults in June found that 64 percent believe "human beings were created directly by God," 22 percent say humans "evolved from earlier species" and 10 percent believe humans "are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." In another question, only 38 percent say humans "developed from earlier species."

-- An NBC News poll of 800 adults in March found that 44 percent believe in a biblical six-day creation, 13 percent in a "divine presence" in creation and 33 percent in evolution.

"Nobody starts out as a Darwinian evolutionist," said William Dembski, professor of science and theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and the author of "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design."

"You start out with a wonder of creation, thinking that there's something beyond it. And then it has to be explained to you why there really is no wonder behind it."

The Gallup poll was released amidst a trial in Harrisburg, Pa., over whether Intelligent Design can be taught in a Pennsylvania school district. Intelligent Design says that patterns in nature are best explained by pointing to a creator (that is, intelligence). Supporters of the theory of Darwinian evolution have opposed Intelligent Design, saying it is not science. Evolution teaches, in part, that humans evolved over millions of years from apes.

But despite the fact that public schools are teaching evolution as fact, Americans are not buying it. A November 2004 poll of 1,016 adults found that 35 percent said evolution was "just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence." Thirty-five percent said evolution was "well-supported by evidence," while 28 percent didn't know enough about evolution to answer. In addition, a February 2001 poll of 1,016 adults found that 48 percent said the "theory of creationism" best explained the origin of human beings while 28 percent said the "theory of evolution" made the most sense.

Reflecting the argument Paul makes in Romans 1, Dembski said the "beauty" and the "extravagance" of creation -- the "beautiful sunsets, flowers and butterflies" -- points to the existence of a creator.

"Unless you're really indoctrinated into an atheistic mindset, I think [the beauty of creation] is going to keep tugging at our hearts and minds," he said.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called the Gallup poll findings "incredible" and said they should be "encouraging" to conservative Christians. ...

Said Dembski: "The secularized education system ... is not being executed as effectively as the secular elites would like. So that's something that we have to be thankful for -- that a lot of schools are not implementing it and forcing it down kids' throats. But it's still happening, and as far as it happens, the indoctrination can be quite effective."

For example, Dembski said, there is little public outcry over PBS programs such as "Nature" that are publicly funded and regularly present evolution as fact. Also, Americans themselves seem conflicted over what to believe. An August Gallup poll found that 58 percent said creationism was definitely or probably true and 55 percent said evolution was definitely or probably true -- meaning that many of those surveyed saw no conflict between creationism and evolution. And the Harris poll that found only 22 percent of adults believing humans evolved from earlier species also found that 46 percent believe apes and humans have a "common ancestry."

Americans, Dembski said, often try to take a middle road by believing God guided evolution. Nevertheless, he said, the poll numbers are promising for Intelligent Design proponents who are making their case in the public square.

"I think anybody who is on the God-had-something-to-do-with-it side -- whether it's through a direct act of creation or through some sort of evolution process -- is likely to give Intelligent Design a second look,” Dembski said. “We have a great pool of people that we can appeal to.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

But where did Noah put the fresh water fish when the seas inundated the fresh water lakes and streams? Or the ants, which would have been flooded out. Or the the hundreds of thousands of species of beetles? How did he make the carnivores not eat the herbivores? How can all of humanity be the product of 8 people (the flood survivors) without a tremendous genetic bottleneck having occurred? And so on...

The Flood is a story for little children.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It's the "Hit em with enough BS and hope they can't catch up" approach. We can't really be too harsh, it's all they've got. :)

[From many - one.]

"That is why teaching ID in public school is required by law"

What law?

Yet again, no citation.

[American in Israel]

We were talking vestigial organs. Or maybe you forgot?

And you have a one doctrine mind I guess. The Appendix is not a vestigial organ, it has an obvious function. For evolution to be true, vestigial organs should outnumber functional ones. To try and excuse the fau-pax of calling the appendix a vestigial organ by ignorant scientists, an argument is made that it is still vestigial but has become a different organ with a different function.

That clearly shows the inability to question authority or to think outside the box. One guy with 1930's science made an error. Get over it. The only evolution shown here is the argument defending Darwin's ignorance.

[gondramB]

No, actually if you apply science to the Bible you come out very well indeed. It has been a fascinating study for me. For instance, for a long time I heard the statement that the earth had waters above, and waters below and that when the Noah thing happened it rained for 40 days and the earth was flooded. Now that totally tweaked me for a while till I understood that water, when super cooled is a super conductor. Know what a super conductor does when it is put in a magnetic field? It is suspended. So if the earth had rings of ice, it would have been a stable condition. It also would have drastically reduced the radiation from the sun and space, throwing off radio carbon dating world wide!

I rewrote this a couple of times trying not to sound mean. And I promise you I don't intend to be mean. But that is perhaps the most ignorant post about science I have ever seen.

It shows such a basic lack of even high school level science that it really means you are not yet qualified to speak about this.

A super conductor has no resistances to electricity. They don't occur in nature at room temperature. Water is not a super conductor. No amount of electricity or sunlight would change the nuclear makeup to effect radio dating.

My response to what you posted is about the same as if someone told me they read the bible and found out that Jesus wants us to kill everyone and eat them -it is so absurd that if I didn't already know you from your posting and know you to be sincere I would think you were simply trolling.

If reconciling the bible with science is at all important to you I urge you most strongly to get some basic science textbooks and learn the basics. I'll either answer any questions you have or refer you to someone who knows more than I if I can't answer.

But honest to goodness, your post is a poster child for the problem at hand. And I give you my word I don't say this to be mean.

[Coyoteman]

You directed us to http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_assumptions.php under the title of "False Assumptions of Radio Carbon dating."

When I got there I found an article titled "Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?" (Subtitle: Combatting Misinformation with Facts).

Unfortunately, I think you cut-and-pasted too quickly, because this article actually corrects misconceptions about the radiocarbon method, and shows why it is accurate during the Biblical period, rather than inaccurate.

An even better article is Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

The bottom line is that by calibrating radiocarbon dates via tree-ring sequences, we have a quite accurate calibration curve going back some 11,600 years.

I do a lot of this kind of dating. If you have any questions, let me know.

[md2576]

Science class is for science and Darwin's Theory of evolution is just that,...

No, it is not.

Evolutionist theory rests entirely upon a presupposition that life is an immaculate conception.

Well you cut off the sentence of my post to spin my words.

I said Science class is for science and Darwin's Theory of evolution is just that, a Theory.

And no where do I see Darwin's theory dispute God played a roll in the beginning of time. They just just don't mention God because for Science it's not their place to say he did. It's the readers choice to add his own religious belief to the theory.

[American in Israel]

So now you are ignorant of the arugment of the seperation of Church and state?

Just how big is that bucket you have your head stuck in?

[gondramB]

"But where did Noah put the fresh water fish when the seas inundated the fresh water lakes and streams? Or the ants, which would have been flooded out. Or the the hundreds of thousands of species of beetles? How did he make the carnivores not eat the herbivores? How can all of humanity be the product of 8 people (the flood survivors) without a tremendous genetic bottleneck having occurred? And so on..."

The rain WAS fresh water so no need to take the fish. The dinosaurs would have had to have been babies.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The Appendix is not a vestigial organ, it has an obvious function."

And vestigial organs don't have to be useless, as Darwin said and evolutionists have said since and only creationists can't seem to understand.

"For evolution to be true, vestigial organs should outnumber functional ones."

Vestigial organs can be functional, just not in what their original function was. Flightless birds' wings, the appendix in humans.

"To try and excuse the fau-pax of calling the appendix a vestigial organ by ignorant scientists, an argument is made that it is still vestigial but has become a different organ with a different function."

No, it's just your blinding willful ignorance and refusal to understand what vestigial has always meant to evolutionary biologists.

"That clearly shows the inability to question authority or to think outside the box."

Coming from an advocate of YEC, that has to be one of the most hilariously ironic statements I have ever heard. :)

[gondramB]

"So now you are ignorant of the argument of the separation of Church and state? "

Evolution doesn't say anything one way or the other about God. It is not in conflict with the idea that God guided evolution but God is not mentioned because has left no scientific evidence of his existence preferring that we have faith.

Lacking such evidence it would be innapropriate to teach about God in a science class.

[md2576]

If you want to teach Darwinism, pay for it yourself. Till then, teach all things that can be argued intelligently and let the kids choose. Anything else is political or religious indoctrination.

On a level playing field, Creation Science holds its own, that is why Darwin based Humanists are so afraid of it.

I don't think it's on a level playing field. If you teach creationism then you are succumbing to all faiths of how, when, and why man became. To teach this would make it a sermon.

The Darwin theory is not asking you to give up everything else you believe for it's an absolute because it says so. Yet, the Bible does teach this.

[American in Israel]

The flood story is written in fossils. Go find some and observe. Note that the layers of dating of eras are not always in the same order. Note also that the "era" layers are not only reversed in 123 and 321 order, but are found in 132 and 312 order.


Note also that the general rule is the objects are sorted by size. You know, like flood waters do.

Most Dr's need to get out of doors more often.

Beetles float on trees. Trees float on water. How do zoo keepers keep carnivores from eating the herbivores. How can Condors be the product of 8 breeding pairs and no longer in danger? Where did all the Sodium Chloride come from in the first place, it is a mineral deposit that is soluble in what? (Guess water, it will save us some time.)

Your arguments are for children, and they are taught in school to children. It is the only place they can pass, like the tooth fairy.

[American in Israel]

I see I am whipping a dead horse here. Go ahead and hold on to your sarcastic faith and your bitter "truths". I will not continue to be your pissing post.

Too bad, there is a lot of fun stuff on those sites.

True science is observation. You should try it some time. Now to see If I can find someone that can read as well as write.

[Mr. Blonde]

So what you are saying is we are going to teach kids that science has rules (the scientific method) and we always follow these rules, except when it comes to ID?

[From many - one.]

You claimed:
"For evolution to be true, vestigial organs should outnumber functional ones."

Wrong and a clear indicator that you do not understand how evolution works.

Oh, btw, citaton please.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The flood story is written in fossils."

Nonsense. The relative ordering of fossils has nothing to do with what we would expect with a massive flood.

"Note also that the general rule is the objects are sorted by size. You know, like flood waters do."

Except the fossil record is not ordered by size. At all. I am speaking of the relative ordering that was almost all in place a few decades before Darwin published.

"Beetles float on trees. Trees float on water."

That is your explanation of how 350,000 species of beetle could have survived the Flood?

"How do zoo keepers keep carnivores from eating the herbivores."

They would have to feed them at sometime over a 100 day period. They also have metal cages.

"How can Condors be the product of 8 breeding pairs and no longer in danger?"

They are still in genetic danger. But I see your pattern, just wave off all arguments like geology or genetics.

"Where did all the Sodium Chloride come from in the first place, it is a mineral deposit that is soluble in what? (Guess water, it will save us some time.)"

That explains how the fresh water fish would survive an inundation of salt water how? Or how salt water animals would survive the dilution of their water, how? If you knew anything about the biology of saltwater fish you would know how absurd your claim is. The smallest change in PH and salinity can kill a great many species of fish, coral, and so on.

You are a scientific ignoramus, and you seem proud of it too.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I see I am whipping a dead horse here."

I can see you are running out of arguments.

"Now to see If I can find someone that can read as well as write."

Projection can be a b*&ch.

Now, please provide the citation for modern elephant bones and egg shells being dated to 100,000 years ago.

[American in Israel]

Well, I will take your kindness at face value. But as for a poster child of the problem at hand, a simple google search presents this thesis:

Ref: Nature, 422,53 (2003) Takada et al
Superconductivity in Two Dimensional CoO2 layers
reporting superconductivity with a Tc of 5 K in NaxCoO2·yH20, which
consists of two-dimensional CoO2 layers separated by a thick
insulating layer of Na+ ions and H2O molecules.


A new type of layered superconductor NaxCoO2·yH20 which consists of
two-dimensional CoO2 layers separated by a thick insulating layer of
Na+ ions and H2O molecules has been observed to have superconductor
transition temperature Tc at 5K.

Crystal space group has an observed "c" dimension of 19.6207
Angstrom. From reference figure 1, this "c" dimension comprises two
layers with 19.6207/2 or 9.9104 Angstrom each.

I checked to see if there was a correlation to the Trisine model as
presented in:


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905007


indicates layer thickness dimension "A" of 11.83 Angstrom at Tc = 5K
which is reasonably ~15% close to 9.9104 Angstrom.

The basic model is kb Tc = hb2 KB2 / 2 mt

where

kb = Boltzmann constant

hb = Planck's constant ( h / 2 pi )

KB = wave vector pi/B

mt = conductor effective mass at 110 x electron mass.

and also A = layer thickness where B/A = 2.38.

The conclusion is that the insulating H20 molecules are key to the
observed superconductivity.

So, perhaps the presence of so much sodium chloride is not so hard to explain after all. And as for my misunderstanding of science think of this, the primary insulator for radiation in the American Style breeder reactor is H20, so the presence of a water ring on the equator balance point in line with the sun would greatly reduce the surface radiation and cause radiometric dating figures to be wildly divergent from the point of the collapse of the ring structure. This would cause dating to become unreliable because radiometric dating is all founded on radiation as a constant. Something that does not occur all that often in dynamic systems.

While I appreciate your pity, remember it is a two edged sword. I fully understand the level of brain washing that evolutionists have been subject to as a manditory foundation of all Government schooling. I just wish they would realize that science has so expanded in the last decade that one must keep abreast to understand what has happened in Creation Science.

It is all there, if anyone really wants to look. The problem with evolution is that it is not science, it is a faith system and nobody really wants to look.

When you get down to it, you can no longer hide from God using a scientific umbrella, because it has become a magnifying glass.

[Coyoteman]

Now to see If I can find someone that can read as well as write.

I can read.

I read the site False Assumptions of Radio Carbon dating you linked to in #131, and replied in #146. The article, on a site called BiblicalChronologist.org, did not confirm what you were saying, in fact it showed just the opposite.

I provided another link on radiocarbon dating as well.

Rather than make a good argument for radiocarbon dating being inaccurate, and thus supporting a young earth, you have actually supported the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating method with your post.