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

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.

I have no problem with radio carbon dating within the known zone of tree ring dating...

As for the radiation output difference in the sun over the last five years, if we were to extrapolate the lesser output back over time, would not the dating figures be badly over inflated as the radiation would be much less, causing the carbon uptake to be much less than expected. And as time passes the ability to detect the increasingly small amounts of radiation that have passed half-life point reach the limits of instrumentation, the smaller amount of radiation available at the start has a greater and greater effect on the date in a logarithmic effect.

Actually the fluctuations in solar radiation are not a large factor, and there are other calibration methods which extend beyond the 11,600 years supplied by tree-ring dating. So, when we get to 30,000 years, we might be off a few hundred years. That's not a big problem. Not sure what you mean by "logarithmic effect" in your post. I believe the problems in this area are more linear. The amount of C14 diminishes in a linear fashion at a regular rate until it is lost in the background noise.

That is where another point you raise comes in. The levels of C14 are getting quite low by the time you get past 30,000 years and even AMS (accelerator mass spectroscopy) dating can't extend it much past 50,000 years (although they are working on methods which might extend AMS to 80,000 or so).

That is why with fossils, rather than organic materials, other forms of radiometric dating are necessary. In some cases several different methods can be used and the results cross-checked one against the other. They are in quite close agreement on the age of the earth, for example.

As far as the last point, about the sun going nova, not much we can do about that yet.

Humanism and Atheism are both religious belief structures and both of them depend on Darwinism as their foundation. Communism also depends on Darwinism.

Just because Humanists, Atheists and Communists depend on Darwin's Theory does not mean that the schools are pushing these particular religions on the students.

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.

What scientific principles are banned that you believe should be taught in school?

So we are suppose to just believe this belief structure with no questions, and that enforced by a court of law because it is the only politically correct dogma?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)

Looks like it leaves doors open for scrutiny to me. The schools don't teach that this is an absolute and that questioning his theory is against a great book or against the word of a great being.

Opening doors for schools to teach ID would hold cause for teaching different ID beliefs. teaching these different beliefs would directly conflict with each other because each belief in ID holds that the word is absolute and the direct word from their particular Designer.

Isaih 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

To repost your definition of Dogma-belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.

In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)

Yet beneficial mutation is not an observed fact, in fact using radiation to cause unusual mutation rates always kills the organism. By the very tenants of natural selection, organisms would tend to try to not mutate to the best of their genetic ability. But, the idea of positive mutation is held by faith, though observed science disproves it.

Just how did a bombardier beetle discover liquid explosives, build a firing mechanism and a trigger mechanism without destroying himself. You need to keep part A of the Chemical separate from part B and at the same time create a firing chamber. Do you have any idea how complex of a genetic change even on of these beetle modifications would have to be, and then have all of the thousands of mutations happen at the same time to the same bug, so it does not blow itself up? What one day, it lays a grenade bug instead of an bug after its own kind? That is not mutation it is invention and it takes intelligence.

It in punctuated equilibrium that was invented to cover the lack of transitional branches in the fossil record not only has beneficial mutation, but beneficial mutation in batches of the same type. Which is a double or nothing bet on a loosing horse.

Then the fossil record is said to demonstrate layering showing the evolutionary record, but the layering comes in random order and is better described by fluid dynamics in stream deposits in a flood event. But, because it is necessary to hold a faith in what is demonstratively false in the field, it is believed in despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

I have talked my face off on the stupidity of Radio-Metrics using radiation levels as a constant to no avail, and not once has that been addressed because with recent scientific studies from the SOPHOS satellite disproving that theory, Evl's must ignore the scientific evidence to the contrary and hold to their faith in a questionable system. How inaccurate is no longer the issue here, the inability to admit inaccuracy in the face of scientific evidence is the issue. Evl has become dogma, its practitioners the priests of the new world order that demand faith greater than any bible thumper.

Science spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create life in the laboratory, when all they have to do is Kill a rabbit and bring it back to life. All the correct amino acids are there, in the proper place, and all the DNA "invention" is done and in place, every organ is a proven system, in place and working and yet, life eludes us. We can even keep the heart beating and teh lungs filling with air so that the rabbit does not decay for quite a long time. But to bring it back to life? No. So why spend money trying to make simple amino acids with lighting through chemical soup when it is all at your fingertips when an ant crosses your keyboard. Zap him and bring him back already.

The moon is a positive feedback balance system, the closer it is to the earth, the more pull the earth gives it to draw it in. If it was falling away from the earth, its centrifugal throw would overcome the gravity, the more it overcomes it, the less gravity so that inherently no moon cannot remain in a stable orbit, in fact the likely hood of the moon being in a stable orbit in the first place is astronomical. It in fact is falling out of orbit, and within 100,000 years will not be there. Of course a meteor strike could correct its orbit, but as things tend to be random in a random world the likely hood of that happening over the last billion or so years is billions to one, or obvious intelligent interference.

And if the moon is a capture event, why is the orbit not elliptical? If it is not a capture event, the time frame given by Evl's would preclude the moon still being there. You can't have it both ways my friends, the moon is obviously there. But by faith you ignore it, every night. You see, to believe in evolution, you have to ignore more than you observe. The simple answer is that the earth and the other planets are way younger than you like to admit, and the moons were created along with the planets in balance.

I could go on, but in each of these chosen items, Evl's have to demonstrate Faith in the face of science defying the foundation of their own justification's of existence! You see, to me it all makes sense, and I do not have to go against what I know to be wrong. That is not faith, that is believing a lie. I do have the advantage of simply not understanding a lot of it.

Now you can flame away, and come up with all the excuses you can, but the very dynamics of the situation has been demonstrated in the thread quite well. Nothing I say makes a dent, if there is no answer it is ignored, and all is delivered with an obvious intention to insult or ridicule to assuage your internal fears of a Creator.

You all are acting like a bunch of Spanish Inquisition Priests trying to protect the "Holy Way." You ban scientific discourse in the courts of law, and teach things that are the foundations of the worst fruits of civilization and call it good because you believe in it despite science. The fact I happen to believe you are wrong does not bring you to try to show me the errors of my ways, or to respect that I may have a thesis of equal weight as another intelligent human being but causes you to try to silence and belittle me. What the heck are you so afraid of that you cannot have a pleasant conversation about this?!

You have no answers for some of these questions, that is obvious, and my guess is from the examples given here that the answers are way more foolish than the questions. Like betting on a google to one chance that two bugs build a cannon at the same time and do not blow themselves up with their first orgasm.

Give it a break, and stop being so religious about this guys!

Isaih 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

To repost your definition of Dogma-belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.

Funny, the only posting of scriptures here is being done by the atheist's, who by definition do not understand them. I am not talking Christian Doctrine here, though you do keep bringing it up, I am talking Creation Science, which for some reason you cannot differentiate the difference. Do you somehow think radio-metric dating methodology, insect morphology, astrophysical dynamics and fluid dynamics in flood deposit conditions are all addressed in the book of something or other? I must have missed that book in there somewhere. I stand clearly against teaching religion in Schools, so why are you posting this stuff about believing in God? Are you saying that you believe in God, or that you know that you will be destroyed for not believing in God? How is that revelant to this descussion?

Somehow you are going to have to get over this God thing so you can think clearly on the issue.

Frankly Dogma, (It was not "my" definition but from googles online dictionary), is exactly what you demand, people to believe in Evolution without question. (Hello, I am questioning it, and we all see how well that is going).

Enforced by law of course. What the heck are you doing trying to get lawyers to enforce your belief system anyway, lawyers don't believe in anything...

In some cases several different methods can be used and the results cross-checked one against the other. They are in quite close agreement on the age of the earth, for example.

That is a good point, and one that also has bad side effects. If the fossil is dated by the geology and the geology is dated by the fossil because there is no measurable methodology that sets a date accurately then the logic is circular, the assumption of how many zeros to put behind the commas is based on sheer guesswork. It is all together based on the Assumption of Ancient Earth.

But if the earth is so Ancient, which is a necessary tenant to bury the lack of observable transitional species, how come with its rate of decay of orbital speed caused by the friction of earth vs Atmosphere and other effects it is still a stable system? While there is some variance in orbital decay, nothing could have kept the earth together over a hundred thousand years from centrifugal effect unless every 10,000 or so years a giant hand appears in space and give the earth a spin to keep it going. Plants do not do well if you shorten the day by too much, are we to believe that they all evolved from a five minute day a million years ago to a 24 hour day now? If so, why are the plants in the stomaches of the mastodon the same as plants that are on the earth now?

I am not trying to torque you here, just to demonstrate every where you look, there is scientific evidence that id a valid basis for ID theroy. Science does not have all the answers as you like to belive and as you were taught. In fact we are just now discovering the good questions! One hundred years ago, we knew so little anybody could claim anything and label it "science" and it was hard to disprove them, now it is not so easy to get away with it anymore.

Geological strate are dated by, for example, measuring the rate of radioactive decay of uranium in zircons to lead. There is no circularity involved.

The atmosphere rotates at the same rate as the earth. If it didn't, you'd have a 1000 m.p.h wind all the time. And since the two rotate at the same rate, and since they rotate in a vacuum, there is no friction.

This is middle-school physics. If you're going to set yourself up as a critic of standard scientific theories, don't you think you should learn a little bit of science first?

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.