Posted on 10/23/2005 12:06:32 AM PDT by 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.
" 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."
5 degrees kelvin is -268 degrees celsius.. That is the kind of basic science knowledge I am talking about.
This same majority can't factor a quadratic equation either.
I can leave it up to you to figure out who designed the whole thing, the fact that it is a design is obvious. But to ignore creation science because it has a God is to ignore heat because it has a fire.
At that point it becomes the religion of athiesm.
ID exists, so draw your own conclusions. There are thousands of God's in mans history, pick another if you must be obtuse.
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.
Umm...that wouldn't be an attempt at an insulting remark, would it?
Won't work, if it is.
Clearly I am aware of Separation of Church and State.
And, to drag your hidden argument into the light of day...no, the theory of evolution is not a religion by any legal test available.
No silly, what I am saying is we are going to teach kids that science has rules (the scientific method) and we are going to follow the rules and try to prove/disprove ID or evolution equally based on observation instead of being hypocrites and teaching only one viewpoint and trying to fight the others scientific observation in a court of law instead of a laboratory.
But then, studying the opposition to the observation that the earth was round would show the same pattern, the flat earthers resorted to the courtrooms instead of science and delayed though did not stop the scientific advancement of the day.
The same thing is going to happen now, because science in the end continues to advance, despite doctrine.
YEC SPOTREP
"Science isn't conducted by polls."
And neither is faith.
"But then, studying the opposition to the observation that the earth was round would show the same pattern, the flat earthers resorted to the courtrooms instead of science and delayed though did not stop the scientific advancement of the day."
What people used the courtrooms to argue a flat Earth? In the past 2,000 years I mean.
You can leave it up to me to find my own way as you found yours, and if it were so obvious then it would be taught in school with some basis of why it's so obvious.
No where in school or in Darwin's theory are they ignoring creation. It just proves we don't know for sure so here's a biological probability. We have plenty of divine examples taught in churches across America. Leave biology theories in Science class and Religious beliefs for the church.
Did you check in the comic book section?
There is no way to "convert" you with stupid arguments over trees and beetles. Do you think that perhaps there were more than a couple of trees in the whole world at the time just like there were a couple of different beetles? I do not recall arguing evolution over adaption yet, that is a whole nother ball game that reduces your beetles to family's, which strangely enough is what your whole evolutionary tree is based on.
First you have to realize that you have not got it all figured out, then we might have a discussion. Till then, it is just you clinging to your faith and being caustic about it. You are a bible thumper, A Darwinistic one. I don't really like Bible thumpers. Face it, this is your religion, you are a priest of the religion and have spent years of your life teaching your acolytes. Fine, enjoy your religion. I don't have a problem with that.
But don't hide behind stupid arguments and insults with me. I don't owe you the sweat off of my back, and I am not your slave to whip. You are an idiot to not see that the first article showed that the accuracy curve is based on the same time line as creationists, as it has to be calibrated by known good specimens, and is wildly inaccurate without such specimens. Specimens that do not occur before the Biblical time line of Creation. You have no calibration points as they simply do not exist. The bristle cone pine does not die of old age. No specimen has been observed dying of old age yet. To assume it only lives from x years old because that is how old it is, is to assume it must die of old age, something never observed, just assumed.
(Whap, the sound of the obvious hitting a thick skull).
The second article brought up the very good point that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that radiation levels are constant. As we are seeing our suns radiation output change in the last five years, this makes radiometric dating based on constant radiation levels down right silly, and not observed science, but FAITH. Yet you cling to your faith to ignore what is observable.
Now is it sheer Co-Inky-Dink that the only span we can calibrate span is the very same span as the Biblical account of the lifespan of the Earth by plus or minus a few thousand years, vs the Billions or Millions of years span of radiometric dating depending on which branch of evolutionist you come from?
10% divergence of a span is logical from observation, but a span that varies by a couple hundred thousand percent is a RAW Guess, not science.
So give me a break. If you want to be arguing from a scientific viewpoint, use science, not your biting sarcasm. While sarcasm has flavor, it usually is bitter and does not hold water well.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Such abject stupidiy! Such bold humor!
Maybe, I should have put
THE MODERN INTERPRETATION
To: CarolinaGuitarmanLook guy, I have fairly answered your questions, and can continue to do so. But the insults show me that you are just being desperate to hold on to your faith.
You are wasting your time with such malakhim raoth. That one is a Marxist troll who hates anything Judaic...
Shalom...
This is a classic here. Best example of Creationist Science I have ever seen.
bttt
It has been shown that people without the appendex have a much higher infection rate. So it is not as useless as we guessed. Just because we do not understand something does not make it useless, it just makes the ameoba that invented it smarter than the evolutionist.How did these people loose their appendixes? I'm guessing surgery. Do you think that might have contributed to their infections?
Ah, another shameless Creationist lying troll. Why am I not surprised...
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.