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.

[Ichneumon]

I find it curious that you can prove that there was no genetic bottleneck in the past, as all genetics stem even in evolution from the ultimate genetic bottleneck, the original breeding pair. Place by design or by evolution, but placed just the same.

Nope, sorry. Evolution does not proceed via "original breeding pairs". Even during species-to-species transitions, there are almost always large breeding populations, not a single "pair".

You simply do not understand how Koala's got to America and Europe either.

On boats and planes, of course. That's not hard to understand at all. People found them in Australia and then brought some back to other continents for zoos and such. Duh.

Now why don't you answer CarolineGuitarman's original question:

Or your explanation for how the koala got to Australia.

Go for it. According to the creationist "model", the koalas had to get from wherever the Ark landed, to Australia, without leaving any any stragglers behind along the way. Are koalas really, *really* good swimmers? And what possessed them to leave a perfectly good mainland, island-hop across Indonesia swimming over large sections of the Indian Ocean, dive into the Timor Sea, and swim 300 miles nonstop until they arrived in Australia?

Most likely in a cage because they are so darn cute, the same reasons Koala's are around the world right now.

Nice try, but no. Koalas lived in Australia long before any humans did.

And even if they hadn't, your "people hand-carried all the animals to their modern locations" hand-waving just doesn't hold water. In your scenario, there were only eight people after that big flood thingy, so clearly they couldn't have immediately scooped up all several million species of animals and carted them off to their tens of thousands of present locations. At the very least, the people would have to breed really intensively for many generations before there would be enough people to do such a massive animal relocation project. But by that time, all the animals would have done their own breeding, and in order to completely relocate all of the animals which are found in only certain parts of the world, you'd need even *more* people to round up every single one of the now thousands of animals of a given species, etc. etc., or else you'd be leaving lots of them clustered around the original Ark dump spot, and there's no spot on Earth with that kind of riotous biodiversity.

Furthermore, the majority of species *are* found only in specific regions, so the whole "people moved them" hypothesis just gets sillier and sillier. Plus, why would ancient man care to do the alleged relocation in such specific biogeographic ways? Why are most marsupials "relocated" to Australia? Why are llamas and similar animals only in the Americas? How did those folks manage to move entire highly interrelated ecosystems intact?

Needs work.

[Ichneumon]

I have not lied.

If you say so.

Nor have you refuted a lot of my questions.

List them and I'll be glad to address them.

The shotgun cut and paste approach does not work well with new ideas, but it is useful only to bury them.

If you can't refute the material, just admit it. Until you do, the fact remains that I've thoroughly refuted the claptrap that was listed from that deeply dishonest creationist book.

Evolution is not cut and dried science,

Nothing ever is.

and more and more these days the foundation stones are being removed and replaced with much more advanced science.

ROFL!!! Okay, sure, right. Such as?

It is bringing big questions on the assumptions of Darwin and his followers.

Such as?

Radio-Metric dating is hardly the panacea to silence the curious anymore.

It's not intended to "silence" anyone, it just provides accurate dates for countless archaeological samples. If that bothers, you, well, that's your problem.

But as it falls, and falling it is, it is taking the roof off of a lot of people locked in the dark.

Do you get dizzy when you spin that much?

[Ichneumon]

You're so lacking in a command of language, you have to steal lines from a Clint Eastwood movie?

I don't recall Clint Eastwood saying it, but the phrase is in common currency -- a Google search returns over 25,000 uses...

So... You're so lacking in substantive responses, you have nothing more to say than get snippy about one of the phrases I used?

Why not actually answer the question I asked you? Here it is again:

Well, they don't, because if natural law were ever really allowed free reign, I would make them fossils.

You're a legend in your own mind, clearly. But why don't you go ahead and explain exactly what you're really saying here? It should be... entertaining. If you mean that you'd sneak up behind us and murder us for disagreeing with you on evolutionary biology, go right ahead and say it straight out.

[exDemocratbutnotRepubican]

"Even he admits there is a lot he doesn't understand and of course weakens his theory."

It proves how smart Darwin was. The unknown he was referring to was genes and DNA. He predicted their future discovery. One of the great missed opportunities of science was that Darwin didn't know about Mendel's work, even though it existed at the time.

The ability to predict future discoveries is the hallmark of a solid theory.

[exDemocratbutnotRepubican]

"No I think you will find that people who believe in Creation tend to not believe in UFO' etc... No UFO's or ghosts in the Bible."

Read Ezekial, lots of ufo's (and ghosts)in the Bible.

[mlc9852]

Typical response from someone who worships Darwin.

[exDemocratbutnotRepubican]

Okay,

I was an evolutionist, but I am now convinced that ID is the answer and that living things do not evolve. Sheeeeew! All that worrying about the bird flu mutating was for nothing.

I'm throwing out my tamiflu now.

[Hacksaw]

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.

I think a majority believe in the workings of evolution, but reject it as the explanation for the origins of life. I doubt the enthusiastic character assasination tactics of the "beginning to end" evolutionists has won any converts from them, which is one reason I am skeptical of them.

[American in Israel]

List them and I'll be glad to address them...Do you get dizzy when you spin that much?

Try using the scroll button. You are obviously being obtuse intentionally. I have stated my position at least three times, somehow I do not think stating it again will reach your see no evil, hear no evil approach to science.

[md2576]

ID has proof and proven evidence and is against the law to teach in a school system that is manditory for students to attend.

If there is this proof you speak of please show me this proof and where you find this proof so that I may see the truth you believe should be taught to kids in school.

The church of humanism must be supported by the taxpayer, because they are too selfish to put money in the plate if it was passed around.

church    (chûrch)

1. A building for public, especially Christian worship.
2. often Church
   1. The company of all Christians regarded as a spiritual body.
   2. A specified Christian denomination: the Presbyterian Church.
   3. A congregation.
3. Public divine worship in a church; a religious service: goes to church at Christmas and Easter.
4. The clerical profession; clergy.
5. Ecclesiastical power as distinguished from the secular: the separation of church and state.

re·li·gion   (r-ljn)

1.  
   1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Show me in either of those definitions how Darwin's theory is a religion or how teaching his theory is considered a church of humanism.

[mdmathis6]

"Yes, lying. Bearing false witness."


Science can't speak as to the validity of morality...and by the way that's "bearing false witness AGAINST your neighbor" as in gossip, slander, or giving false testimony against one in the courts. Von Sternberg was the victim of such "false witness" by strident evolutionists...but that's right...they aren't beholden to normal standards of morality... to them a God doesn't exist that would validate morality and ethics! Hitler argued for evolutionary cleansing of the human race, modern day evolutionists are a little more sneaky about it!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The First Amenment says no such thing...

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick.

Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age.

Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Whatever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’?

“…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... ”

[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]

Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[American in Israel]

So now you expect me to believe that not only does positive genetic mutation occur, but it occurs simultaneously with more than 8 breeding pairs springing up with the same genetic mutation at the same time at the same place. A trillion to one odds occurrence, occurs with TxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT odds? That is, with 9 breeding pairs 1 to 10to the 167 square odds. 1 two full lines of text zeros following it. Talk about winning the lottery. Man, now that is faith. Or of course, someone might have placed the breeding pairs, but that would be Creation wouldn't it. Specially when you have to take all the thousands of animals and repeat winning that same set of odds thousands of times.

If ID is real, men occurred at the same time as the Koala, so your proof is circular logic at best. Men captured the teddy bears and sold them elsewhere for a good profit. Go figure that as hard odds somehow compared to your infinitesimally minute odds of multiple instant simultaneous spontaneous parallel positive mutation. (punctuated equilibrium).

Species tend to head and breed where the environment favors them, fish tend to go to water, birds migrate to good habitat, bears head for the woods etc. Dang, that is hard to figure out. We have a flu that is spreading world wide in one season with animals under their own power it is just so impossible for anything to go a few thousand miles in a few thousand years. (/sarcasm)

Besides, as I stated before I am not against adaptation, it is easily observed in nature, just trans species changes have never been observed.

Look, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are defending your Atheist ways, and not interested in a observational discussion. I keep having to repeat myself, and beyond sarcasm, I do not see much discussion here. At this part of the game I am busy and no longer bored and do not have time for you anymore. Sorry, hire your own researcher and castigate him.

There is a scripture for you to contemplate. It commands a wise man to not cast his pearls before swine, for they will trample the pearls, turn and rend (bite, tear open) you.

You don't want to hear, fine. Ignore that radio-metrics are now suspect because the dating depends on constant radiation levels, and radiation levels are rising right now. When your constants are variables, your equations are garbage. Pretend that demonstrated errors do not exist, if they disturb you so. Believe that ID only works when flowers and genetics do it, not anything that you may have to answer to in the future. Perhaps you could call it UD for unintellegent design, which frankly the whole evolutionary house of cards is built of. Frankly I find it a lot harder to believe an amoeba knows more about genetic engineering than men, but hey, Got to say, you have a lot of faith.

Its a free world, you can do with your life what ever you want. But life does have consequences...

[American in Israel]

No, since past amounts of radiocarbon have already been properly calibrated. No recent fluctuations will have any effect on the past concentrations, needless to say, unless you've got a time machine in your pocket.

Uh, so the recent variance of radiation from the sun is a one time event, and you know because you were there? Obviously the constant of the suns output, ain't. I can't believe you do not comprehend this. Besides, one meteor shower of radioactive materials would change the background radiation, or a passing dust region that the solar system passes through. One increases background radiation, the other decreases it from the sun that is not a constant anyway.

If the background radiation was shielded with Ice rings as the Biblical story hints, your starting radiation would be drastically smaller than you calculated for. Tell me, would that make your test show an item as much older than it is? As a few feet of water is an excellent radiation shield in a nuclear reactor, I suspect the background radiation would have been infinestetimaly small. It may even have something to do with the reported longer life span.

Was that the story, WE DO NOT KNOW, just like YOU DO NOT KNOW that present variables were constants for millions of years.

Your radio metrics depend on no variablility of radiation rate, but in a dynamic system it just does not work that way. In real life recent measurements of the SOPHOS satellite have shown increasing radiation rates that is affecting the ice caps of all the planets in the solar system. (So much for man being the cause of global warming, the sun is hotter and, suprise, its getting hotter)

Now tell the scientists at NASA that they are all liars and are Creationists, they could use a good laugh. It's better than thinking up ways to insult me for things you cannot seem to comprehend.

[gondramB]

"Read Ezekial, lots of ufo's (and ghosts)in the Bible."

Just for the record I didn't say otherwise - I was quoting someone else to disagree with it.

[American in Israel]

Humanism and Athiesm are both religious belief structures and both of them depend on Darwinism as their foundation. Communism also depends on Darwinism. Why do we teach a science, that is based on the scientific principle of observed reality, by banning the teaching of scientific principles that are also observed, and repeatable because it interferes with the religious belief structure of the minority in control? That is not science, it is dogma.

DOGMA
noun {C or U} DISAPPROVING

a fixed, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.

Or this one is interesting:
AGNOSTIC or ATHEIST
An agnostic is someone who holds that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not. An atheist holds that there is no God. The word agnostic was invented by the 19th-century biologist T H Huxley.

Gee, an evolutionary biology teacher, who whouda thunk it?
So we are suppose to just believe this belief structure with no questions, and that inforced by a court of law because it is the only politicaly correct dogma?

Mao would have loved todays American schools. He would have felt right at home.

[gondramB]

"Humanism and Athiesm are both religious belief structures and both of them depend on Darwinism as their foundation. Communism also depends on Darwinism. Why do we teach a science, that is based on the scientific principle of observed reality, by banning the teaching of scientific principles that are also observed, and repeatable because it interferes with the religious belief structure of the minority in control?"


1. We don't do that, in general. All you would have to do is show strong scientific evidence of Intelligent Design and you could get it into the curriculum. Even before you have any evidence you are free to spread your ideas through any other method.

2. Communism, founded in "les communes" in France predated Darwin. Not to mention that Darwinism is much more involved than just survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest is found in many trains of thought but that doesn't make them Darwinism.

[American in Israel]

Problem is that Darwinists hold the keys to the gates. It is a whole belief sturcture to them. There is just as much if not more Evidence of ID than Evolution, But there are no ID teachers in a Evl school system. Even with manditory indoctrination from grade school to the highest levels of College, more Americans believe in ID than in Evl.

That is the point of the thread. Imagine if ID was allowed to be presented on equal grounds on just its scientific observation. The balance would not shift to Evl, but would allow ID to be considered.

Honestly if Evl was the truth, there would be no contest, but that is not the issue. Though it should be. What do Evl's fear so much if ID is really so baseless?

This is a science class we are talking about, not a philosphy class.

[American in Israel]

"We don't do that in general..."

That is the problem, you see, banning ID teaching in a science class is not banned in general, it is banned absolutely. Any teacher that dares to teach anything about ID besides to deride it is fired. So now all the teachers are strictly Evolutionists.

This is not science it is dogma. (As previously defined)

But most of our schools have been politically corrected in the last few decades, that is why our kids now test much lower than other nations, where once we were the cream of the crop. In California, where money in schools is as common as scrap paper our kids test dumber than dirt. Six figure salaries for administrators for men and women who converted the best schools in the world to the worst. But at least the kids know what AIDS is, and can contemplate types of sexual deviancy with the most jaded adults.

They may not know how to hold down a six figure job, but they are well trained for prostitution. This is the school system that refuses to teach science that includes all evidence. Somehow I am not surprised.

[atlaw]

Problem is that Darwinists hold the keys to the gates. It is a whole belief sturcture to them.

Who do you suppose is in charge of the conspiracy?

There is just as much if not more Evidence of ID than Evolution

Leaving aside the theory of evolution, can you provide a list of, say, 10 (or better, 29+) evidences for intelligent design?