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]

Have you noticed we've been backroomed?

Many fear the truth, it shakes the foundation of modern life and scares the lemmings so that they break fromn the herd.

[Ichneumon]

[How freaky is it that every time a creationist is simply asked whether he condones dishonesty by creationists, he can't even bring himself to say, "no, I dont"?]

OK, I'll be first, "No I don't."

Cool, thanks. But I think your response actually reinforces my point instead of refutes it. From the rest of your post, it sounds as if you're not an *anti-evolution" creationist, is that correct?

Although I didn't use that exact term ("anti-evolution creationist") in the above passage, that's the specific kind of creationist I was talking about, which I hope was clear enough from the rest of my post. I have no beef with people who believe that God was involved in creation in some manner but who aren't rabidly anti-evolution, even though such folks could reasonably be called "creationists" as well.

The term "creationist" is usually used on these threads to refer only to the anti-evolution type -- I wish there were a more specific word meaning "anti-evolution creationist", but there isn't (that I'm aware of), and the "AEC" designation is really unwieldy (especially since the "AEC" folks refer to *themselves* as simply "creationists"...)

[Sofa King]

I just thought you'd find it amusing.

[PatrickHenry]

I do.

[Coyoteman]

The perplexing question of human origin from a common ancestor to apes is even more problematic. According to evolutionary theory, humans (homo sapiens) did not descend from apes, but from some “missing link.” Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers. Logic also suggests in order to “descend,” there has to be something you descend from and something you ascend to.

Evolutionary theory, rooted in the universal human dissatisfaction for mortality is a vain search for human origin(s), an attempt to rationalize a yearning for connection to something eternal.

Now, since nobody really knows the answers, it is only a scientific method to consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings. To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, with professors as witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices.

This is the fourth or fifth time I have seen you post this today. But you never responded to my post concerning it about 10 AM this morning. So I will respond to a different part of your post than I did earlier.

Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers.

Louis Leakey (1903-1972) hasn't been searching for decades, he searched decades ago. He passed the search on to others, including Mary and Richard Leakey, Don Johanson, and Tim White, who have been working throughout Africa, with particularly good results from both Kenya and Ethiopia.

For example, AL 129, "Johanson's Knee", found by Don Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1973, dated to 3.4 million years ago. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult. The bones are the proximal distal and distal femur.

The point of including this cute fossil is to contradict the implication of your post, that Louis Leakey's search in Olduvai has "given no answers." His work, and the work of many others before and since, has indeed provided a lot of good evidence. These are part of the "facts" part of evolution. Leakey, and the others, have also been advancing the theory part of evolution.

Still others are working with DNA and biology and a host of other fields, some of which didn't even exist when Louis Leakey started working. Can you imagine how much fun he would have with our current capabilities in radiometric dating and genetics, and the advances in theory, which have been made since he left the field?

[Ichneumon]

My guess is you will ignore this piece of wood measured in error, as it was not the bone and reply with a 5 line comment that three lines are personal attacks.

Wrong again.

I have not heard one single decent scientific argument from any of the evolutionists here,

...that you couldn't pretend you didn't see...

Don't like what I have to say, refute it

Okey dokey: Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CD011.5: A piece of wood was fossilized in the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Australia, which most geologists date to the middle Triassic, about 225 to 230 million years ago. Also note that this yet again documents creationist dishonesty and misrepresentations.

Wow, that was easy. What else ya got?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Wow, that's incredibly stupid --

Or at least I know a lot more of them than you do.

ROFL!!!!!!! Honestly, that's just about the most dimwitted thing I've heard in a long time.

Um, you're confusing "science" with "empty-headed relativism". Are you sure you have any clue what in the hell you're talking about?

Oooookay... Run along and play, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

Yes, Virginia, some opinions *are* more informed and supportable than others.

Did you learn *nothing* from The Enlightenment? What have you been doing for the past 350 years, napping?

All of the above are fallacies in logic (which made up the bulk of your post). But, since you are so bereft of logic, go sod yourself off thinking you are so smart...

[Ichneumon]

Many fear the truth, it shakes the foundation of modern life and scares the lemmings so that they break fromn the herd.

That's the first thing you've said all day that I can wholeheartedly agree with, albeit probably not in the way you meant it.

[moog]

anti-evolution" creationist, is that correct?

It depends on how one defines it. In the negative sense of the prefix anti--maybe I'm not because that's not my approach to things. Nevertheless, I don't believe in evolution, but do in creation. I DO allow for certain things in evolution and realize that is man's way of undertanding the creation/populating of the world's life forms. Oops--just about made the common mistake that many people do and assume that the Big Bang was evolution.

I can have discussions with both evolutionists and creationists and learn. That's my approach. I won't call them intelligent duscussions though because I'm not that intelligent:). I seem to recall that you and I have had discussions before so forgive me if I'm repeating myself.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My guess is you will ignore this piece of wood measured in error, as it was not the bone and reply with a 5 line comment that three lines are personal attacks."

"Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. In doing so, he claims to have invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale. Snelling has not submitted this article for peer-review, nor does he apparently have any intention of doing so. The paper is for dissemination to other young-earth creationists. As you read, please note that the principle question regarding these studies is the level of contamination in the samples. Snelling NEVER addresses the fundamental objection.

Photo of Alleged Sample (See above reference)

Intrigued, I decided to pursue this matter in a bit more detail. I wrote to the head of Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group (Dr. Cherkinsky) who responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail:

From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions

Dear Joe

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures
lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which
could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.

Best regards.

Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager"
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm

Yet another creationist lie.



Now you can answer Ichneumon's post.

And I eagerly await your explanation for how 8 closely related people can be the ancestor's of 6 billion people without causing a severe genetic bottleneck. Or your explanation for how the koala got to Australia.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The “missing link” is the common ancestor where both apes and hominids broke off the chain...

It has yet to be found. This is what Leaky searched vainly for all those years and is still yet missing...

[From many - one.]

Since AI didn't post a citation, as usual, I too the liberty of getting one: Andrew Snelling is the author.


A refutation and riposte are posted here:
Moore on ancient radiocarbon
Address:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp

Basically, an easily contaminated sample of uncertain composition.

[Ichneumon]

All of the above are fallacies in logic

No, they aren't. Trying to discredit an author in order to dishonestly imply that his material is faulty is a fallacy.

It is not, however, a fallacy to show that because the material is laughably wrong, the author is being ridiculous.

I did the latter, not the former. Try to keep up.

But, since you are so bereft of logic,

Unsupported assertion, ten yard penalty. It also appears to be a cheap tactic used for the purpose of evasion (i.e., the old "I don't have to respond to the points you've made if I pretend they aren't there" ruse.)

go sod yourself off thinking you are so smart...

Wow, how could I possibly continue in the face of such a calm, witty, informative, rational response from you?

Look, if you're not emotionally and/or logically able to deal with people pointing out your mistakes, go find some other thread to pester.

[Ichneumon]

Have you noticed we've been backroomed?

The Smoky Backroom -- where threads seem to suddenly end up whenever the creationists are getting smoked.

[airborne502]

Sir Francis Dashwood wrote:

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

Not at all.
At #31 you made the 'critical' point:

But since we are all properly obeying * the modern interpretation * of the First Amendment... Good or bad isn't the question. Good, bad, right, wrong, evil, moral: all of these are purely religious. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
* The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. * (The "modern interpretation.")

Then the counterpoint was made:

" --- 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 beliefs that divide us.

The Constitution actually says neither of those things.

No one said it did; -- those two comments were counterpoints to your comments.

It does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
That means no law whatsoever, nor does it mean the Supreme Court can make laws.

The counter was made that -- "it is not necessary for governments to 'exorcise all traces' [of god], but to just avoid backing specific beliefs, -- those beliefs that divide us."
-- in other words, "In God We Trust" is a perfectly fine motto for our coins, etc.

Oh, and please tell me where in the Constitution is the word "education" or is it mentioned as a federal responsibility or under jurisdiction of the Federal Courts?

Have I mentioned education? That's an odd shift, in particular because I favor private education.

[Ichneumon]

The “missing link” is the common ancestor where both apes and hominids broke off the chain...

I seem to have missed the part of evolutionary biology where it says that either species "broke off the chain"...

It has yet to be found.

Because "breaking off the chain" is a nonsense concept?

This is what Leaky searched vainly for all those years

No, that's not what he was looking for, but thanks for playing.

and is still yet missing...

What's not missing is huge mountains of evidence that have already been found, which the creationists are studiously pretending don't exist, while they play diversion games like "look, over there, a missing [fill-in-the-blank]"!

[From many - one.]

I thought they normally got smoked, but if it happens on weekend, then here comes the backroom.

[Coyoteman]

This is the link for American in Israel's posted material: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp.

Poking around google a bit I found the following discussion (I have omitted the illustrations -- follow the link for the article)

Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?

Added July 25, 2003: One of the recent claims is that coal also contains C-14 that allows it to be dated. An article on coal and C-14 is posted at the TalkOrigins site http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html and is worth a look.

Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. In doing so, he claims to have invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale. Snelling has not submitted this article for peer-review, nor does he apparently have any intention of doing so. The paper is for dissemination to other young-earth creationists. As you read, please note that the principle question regarding these studies is the level of contamination in the samples. Snelling NEVER addresses the fundamental objection.

Intrigued, I decided to pursue this matter in a bit more detail. I wrote to the head of Geochron Labs Radiocarbon group (Dr. Cherkinsky) who responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail:

From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions

Dear Joe

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.

Best regards.

Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager

Snelling had a fit when I posted this to a Cre-evo discussion board and insisted that it (a) was wood and (b) he has proof in a drawer somewhere. Aside from the obvious poor documentation by Snelling, he made the following statement:

"If it wasn't a sample of fossilised wood, then apart from Dr Cherkinsky's obfuscation, how do Drs Meert and Cherkinsky explain its radiocarbon content? Quite clearly their opposition to the results of this genuine research study are more to do with their a priori belief about the age of the earth and its rock strata than with science. The evidence they are trying to cover with a smokescreen of personal abuse instead speaks for itself. "

Is this a valid criticism? It might appear to be, but there are several clues from Snellings own hand that indicate there are problems with this analysis. Please note, Snelling seems puzzled that an iron concretion could give a radiocarbon age. This is not at all uncommon and a cursory look at the literature would have given Snelling something to think about when he noticed the iron present in the sample. The first is Snellings description of the 'wood' impregnated with silica and hematite. Hematite is an iron oxide (rust essentially). Snelling adamantly maintains that the sample is wood from the Hawkesbury Formation Indeed, carbonized wood and plant matter is reported from the Hawkesbury Formation, but Snelling provides no detailed description of possible subsequent alteration---with the exception of the 'impregnated' sentence above. However, this alteration is probably the key to the 'dilemma'. It likely explains why Geochron labs identified it as an iron concretion with structures resembling wood. The replacement of wood by iron and silica would give it just that appearance. This alteration immediately calls into question the use of C-14 dating on the sample. There have been studies on iron concretions and 'dating' of them. For example Bird et al. (1994, The Carbon Isotope Composition of Organic matter occluded in iron nodules; Chem Geol, 114) states:

Abstract:

This study presents 13C and 14C results for soil organic carbon and carbon occluded by iron nodules from a quaternary soil profile developed on basalt in western Victoria, Australia. The results suggest that the 13C-value of organic matter in the iron nodules is directly inherited from the surrounding soil profile without isotopic fractionation, and that therefore the 13C-value of organic matter occluded by the iron nodules can be related to the vegetation present during nodule formation. However, 14C results suggest that iron nodules are not closed systems with respect to organic carbon, and that even chemically resistant immobile particulate carbon (of probably microbial origin) has been added to the nodule carbon pool since formation.

Interestingly, the sample run in that study gave 13C values typical of organic material (as in the Snelling study) and the iron concretion also gave radiocarbon dates due to contamination. For example, nodules in the Bird et al. (1994) study gave 13C= -24 o/oo. In this study (from a different area of Australia), the nodules gave C-14 ages between 7470-1960 14C (before 1950). So, despite Snelling's incredulity about how one obtains an age from iron concretions, the answer is with some contamination. Therefore, although Snelling claims that cleaning would remove all possible contaminants, the paper by Bird et al. (1994) shows that this is not the case for iron concretions because they do not remove microbial contamination as clearly demonstrated by the study.

Furthermore, it is this microbial contamination that is responsible for the 'apparent age' of the sample. We have Snelling admitting that the sample was altered (silica and iron-rich), the radiocarbon lab manager -- whose specialty is C-14 dating of woody material -- stating that the sample appears to be a concretion and a study that shows quite clearly how such samples can give 'dates' through contamination. Unfortunately, Snelling keeps the data locked in a drawer and refuses to submit it for peer-review. Until he does so, recent contamination of the sample remains the most viable explanation for the supposed 'anomalous' dates. Note, this is not a case of he said, she said. This is a case of poorly documented science on the part of Snelling. He wants to overturn all of geology, but does not want to properly document the evidence.

It is also very likely that Snelling repeated this error half a world away. In his 'study' of the Marlstone rock bed in England, he also reports anomalous C-14 ages in an area known to contain younger iron oxidative products. Of course, Snelling also closely guards these data in some drawer and refuses to submit the publication for peer-review. Note that in the picture included in the Snelling article, it is impossible to determine whether or not this is wood. Fossil wood is reported as a rare occurrence around Banbury, so it is possible that Snelling has indeed sample fossil wood, but the evidence provided in the photo is scanty.

A recent paper (there are a number of these) by Deyell et al. (2000, Can J. Earth Sci., Age and Origin of advanced argillic alteration zones and related exotic limonite deposits in Limonite Creek area, central British Columbia) shows that limonite will indeed give C-14 ages as it replaces plant material. Even if we assume that Snelling has indeed sampled fossil wood of Jurassic age, no carbon should be left in the wood and therefore it is imperative in his 'test' to fully document that there is no contamination present.

Snelling lists 4 reasons why contamination can be ruled out. He states:

(1) since labs all obtained similar ages this rules out contamination.

That is simply twisted logic. If the contamination is all of a similar age, then the data will be similar.

(2) he talks about levels of 'unavoidable contamination'

This seems to cancel the logic in point number 1, he also 'invents a 0.2% value out of thin air, contamination could be more and he needs to document that HIS samples contain no more than 0.2% of contaminants. Cherkinsky noted (in a personal communication) that iron deposite contain up to 15% organic matter. Furthermore, if the sample is indeed a Jurassic wood any contamination would be a problem.

(3) He states the the 13C values are indicative of organic plant material.

This is correct but as noted above contamination by younger organic plant material will still result in 'characteristic 13C values.

(4) Snelling asserts that if anyone claims contamination it would be an ad-hominem attack against respected laboratories.

One wonders why Snelling might mention this since he claims (kind of) that the samples are not contaminated. Perhaps, it is a pre-emptive strike since he realized that he has not fully documented his case for no contamination? Unfortunately, contamination can occur at any point along the way including during formation of the sample. As noted above and again below, there are cases where contamination cannot be removed. Hence, not a single one of his 4 reasons involves unequivocal proof that his samples were not contaminated! It is also not a slam on the laboratories.

There is a little more, including some rebuttal and counter rebuttal. Follow the link.

It is always best to crosscheck anything posted on these forums. Mistakes are easy to make, and a single post often does not explore the full range of data or opinion on a subject.

[jennyp]

Vestigial doesn't mean useless; it means it no longer follows one of the original functions of the structure, like an ostriches wing. Darwin knew this 150 years ago, when will creationists actually read what evolutionists say before making such silly statements?

The day creationists actually read what evolutionists say is the day they have a severe crisis of faith. This is unthinkable to them. So very few of them will ever dare to tread there.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

If it only happened once or twice I would think it was an accident. When it is explained over and over to them and they still say the same things there is a lot more going on than simple ignorance.