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.

[American in Israel]

Sorry, do not remember the reference, as you were the "eggspurt" I was hoping you knew of the tests. And could shed some light on it.

As for the ordering of the fossil layers, it is the whole foundation for era dating of fossils, obviously also outside your field, as 312 and 213 layering completely disproves era dating, yet can be observed easily in the field. It is harder to explain size sorting to a complete novice, but it is based in Physics of fluid dynamics in that deposits of debris in a stream tends to be sorted by size. This is why fossils are most often found sorted by size, and type as the stream flow dynamics tends to sort objects based on similar friction coefficients vs mass charaistics. In simpler terms, the stream tends to push objects along until changes in flow cause objects to no longer be pushed. This stacks similar objects together and is why fossils not only tend to be of the same object, like snails with like snails but tend to be sorted not only by type but by size in different parts of the fossil field.

It is such a perfect example of faith based science I was hoping you had some real field experience.

As for more interesting dynamics in fossil creation is that it does not occur naturally with animals, it takes an electric field to cause mineralization before the animal rots. This occurs naturally only when the forces that bury the animal also cause great dissimilar mineral mixing. The chemical re balancing of the dissimilar minerals create the necessary ionic mineral flow. You see this effect in bullets picked up out of streams, sometimes a mineral donut forms around the lead bullet and the brass case. The organic acidic bacterial action of the stream bed causes a small battery action with the dissimilar metals that causes sandstone to form around the bullet.

This same action in the flood or volcanic ash deposits occurs when metal bearing minerals are crushed and ground by radical flood action or deposited in mineral bearing volcanic ash.

This thesis has been observed in the stream beds of Mt Saint Helen's, and has been observed often by gold panners in the mother load. After all, if sandstone takes thousands of years to form, Winchester is a very old company.

Of course this does bring to mind, where did all that organic material come from that is buried so deep as to make oil deposits. Giant prehistoric armored earth worm migrations, like the B movies or a planetary flood event? You figure which has more scientific probability.

Funny thing about Freeper land, you never know just who you are talking too. Sometimes us "running out of argument, scientific ignoramus types" actually do have a background that is relevant.

[From many - one.]

Just for fun:

Fungi were neither listed as created nor listed as saved on the ark. Fungi are not plants and an omniscient Creator who made everything else would know that.

If "kinds" are families, then how did they evolve so fast, then stop?

Where did the Flood water go?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Ah, another shameless Creationist lying troll...

I'm an atheist and I'm not an orthodox atheist like you. There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist...

Your screen name. Is it just a harrowing display of blasphemy, or are you a Christian satanist?

Those who use the 666 thing are nothing really than wannabe satanists. The 666 is supposed to be real scary, coming from the Christian Bible (and it has nothing to do with Judaism).

But of course since you are so ignorant of literature, I wouldn't expect you to think before you chose such a stupid name... research mine... then tell me about it you ignorant POS...

[American in Israel]

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, only a scientific one. Law is the science of cowards. The very foundation of science is observation, to outLAW ID is simply not scientific. If ID is foolishness, it should be easy to demonstrate it in the Laboratory. AS ALL teachers in Public schools have passed the required doctrinal thesis tests, the cards are quite well stacked in favor of the current religion, it is the fear of science that has them resorting to court battles.

Your papers please does not impress me unless you have a gun to my head, and it is the gun that impresses me. You have no gun, and no argument. As this is the internet, and a gun will not work, try argument, I have a insult proof vest.

[airborne502]

Sir Francis Dashwood wrote:

* THE MODERN INTERPRETATION of The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. *

---

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the [differing & divisive] establishments of religions.

The religion clauses were designed in significant part to try to temper religious disputes: -- The social dissension that grows out of the fact that people have different religions.

Thus, it is not necessary for governments to 'exorcise all traces', but to just avoid backing specific beliefs, -- those that divide us.

81 faireturn

---

Maybe, I should have put
THE MODERN INTERPRETATION
174 SFD

---

I don't see that it changes the point.

[American in Israel]

What people used the courtrooms to argue a flat Earth? In the past 2,000 years I mean.

Man, they don't teach much of nothing in schools any more do they? Go back to the flat earth controversy, it was a big turning point in scientific history. You can't miss it. A study of that is quite enlighting in the present context of ID vs Evolution.

[From many - one.]

You have no citations on modern eggshell or elephant bones dated umpty million years ago.

I'm not surprised.

For the lurkers: no citations on anything else either. A pseudo-citation contraverting rather than supporting the argument in one case.

Bearing false witness.

[From many - one.]

I have not the slightest interest in or intention of impressing you or even educating you.

I post primarily for the lurkers.

You are basically just the example for them to analyse. Straightman, as it were.

[American in Israel]

Leave biology theories in Science class and Religious beliefs for the church.

No, not only that but hell no. If I did that I would be endorsing the State Church of Atheism wouldn't I?

How about this, stop defining science in court, and requiring Children to be taught the State approved viewpoint of reality in political indoctrination sessions and let science be defined as it falls, observed and measured, or not.

If evolution can't hold its own against creation science, do you really want to force it on your children?

I am not talking religion classes, (which other than Christianity is required by law under the diversity clause) but simple science. You see, the problem is, as this thread has shown that evolutionary science CANNOT hold its own any more, and those who have used it to base their world view are in a panic to "defend the faith" where simple scientific discussion can and WILL sort out the differences. Let Evolution and ID compete along with all the other observations and let the best man win. Till then, biology class is just a religion, not science.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't see that it changes the point.

You totally missed the critical purpose of the statement...

[American in Israel]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Such abject stupidiy! Such bold humor!

And such a well thought out argument for a balrog.

[From many - one.]

What this thread has shown, and continues to show, is that scientists can back up what they say and literal Creationists can't.

[American in Israel]

Indeed, but his back makes such a good soapbox my friend, gam lecha.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Man, they don't teach much of nothing in schools any more do they? Go back to the flat earth controversy, it was a big turning point in scientific history. You can't miss it. A study of that is quite enlighting in the present context of ID vs Evolution."

No, please enlighten us. I KNOW you don't mean Columbus *proving* the Earth was round, right? Because he didn't have to; every educated person in Europe knew that the Earth was round. It was know since the ancient Greeks. It's a myth from the late 1800's that Columbus was faced with opposition by flat Earthers in getting support for his voyage.

So please, tell us where flat Earthers used the courts to argue their case.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sorry, do not remember the reference, as you were the "eggspurt" I was hoping you knew of the tests."

You make a ridiculous claim, then can't back it up, so all you have left now are insults? It's now MY fault you made a baseless claim you couldn't support?

"Funny thing about Freeper land, you never know just who you are talking too. Sometimes us "running out of argument, scientific ignoramus types" actually do have a background that is relevant."

Sometimes we get lucky and only have to deal with people like you. :)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You have no citations on modern eggshell or elephant bones dated umpty million years ago.

And the non-existent “missing link” is still missing. Louis Leaky spent decades searching, but zinjanthropus and homo habilis in Olduvai Gorge proved nothing.

[American in Israel]

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

I never advocated teaching about God, what if UFO's did it? However it seems to me from observation that the fear of God is the fuel behind evolution.

[From many - one.]

Luck not needed. Who else would be posting that type of stuff?

[From many - one.]

You've missed part of the thread.

That's been covered.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Indeed, but his back makes such a good soapbox my friend, gam lecha.

LOL!