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.

[Wormwood]

Who's more likely to actually find truth?

What leads you to believe the ID movement is interested in the truth?

[Coyoteman]

Honestly, if evolution was real, we would all be sprouting useless apendages constantly in attempts to evolve. But, none of the dead ends exist, therefore evolution does not exist.

Absolutely wrong. Here are some good references: PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.

[Coyoteman]

What about the appendix?

Its at the end, with the Index.

[From many - one.]

150 years ago...

no DNA structure, no Mendelian genetics


everything learned since then has strenthened, not weakened, the theory.

[From many - one.]

I think you meant the male of which is not otherwise interested in the flower.

Not as hard as you might think. There are much more exotic evolutionary oddities.

[gondramB]

"50% of americans have IQ's below 100 (by definition)."

"That explains why some of them believe in evolution I guess..."

Roughly 50% of the population also believe in ghosts and esp.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It has been shown that people without the appendex have a much higher infection rate. So it is not as useless as we guessed."

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?

[gondramB]

"My income is over $20,000 and my IQ is almost 140 and I believe God created the heavens and the earth and humans as they are today. I guess I must be an aberration."

It puts you in the minority but that;s not always a bad thing...

I'm curious though - how do you reconcile that position with radioactive dating and the fossil record. I've heard some people say God created those contradictions to test our faith in the bible - is that how you feel?

[American in Israel]

One thing you cannot understand, and that is the vestigal organ that proves evolution?! Where are the hundreds of vestigal limbs and organs that do not help you compete, yet do not hinder you?

Evolution is a religious attempt to deny the obvious.

[American in Israel]

Funny thing is, its the same group that believes in evolution.

[mlc9852]

"there are two obvious problems with radioactive dating for geological purposes: 1) uncertainty about the composition of the original sample and 2) possible losses of material during the time span of the decay."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html

Therefore I don't consider it foolproof. And the fact that we just aren't sure how far back it would prove reliable.

[American in Israel]

It's not hard, its impossible. Do you actually think the flower thought up this scheme and being such a smart flower it understood genetic engineering?

Muslims must be trying to evolve into grenadiers, one of them some day will figure out how to throw the bomb belt.

In this case, never underestimate the IQ of a flower, or the stupidity of a Human. Darwin depends on it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"One thing you cannot understand, and that is the vestigal organ that proves evolution?! Where are the hundreds of vestigal limbs and organs that do not help you compete, yet do not hinder you?"

You didn't even try to comprehend what I wrote.

[American in Israel]

If the appendix has been shows to be part of the immune system, then how does it no longer follow its original purpose?

Hello?

Without its wings an ostrich could not run well over rough terrain, in fact its wings work quite well. It just cannot fly. But the over size digestion system allows it to live in an area that it is quite well made for.

So I do not consider the wings to be vestigial, clip its wings and it is almost defenseless against predators as it cannot keep its balance, nor turn near as fast.

What is useless on birds are their bright colors and decorative plumage, obviously who ever made them was an artist.

[From many - one.]

Have you taken any bioogy courses past bio 101?

It really isn't hard.

[Wormwood]

What is useless on birds are their bright colors and decorative plumage, obviously who ever made them was an artist.

The peacock's tail is the classic example of sexual selection through mate choice. It evolved because peahens preferred larger, more colorful tails. Peacocks would survive better with shorter, lighter, drabber tails. But the sexual choices of peahens have made peacocks evolve big, bright plumage that takes energy to grow and time to preen, and makes it harder to escape from predators such as tigers. The peacock's tail evolved through mate choice. Its biological function is to attract peahens. The radial arrangement of its yard-long feathers, with their iridescent blue and bronze eye-spots and their rattling movement, can be explained scientifically only if one understands that function. The tail makes no sense as an adaptation for survival, but it makes perfect sense as an adaptation for courtship.

from "The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature"
Geoffrey Miller, Doubleday 2000

[From many - one.]

Bright olors and fancy plumage on male birds convey a breeding advantage.

[American in Israel]

Have you ever taken any creation courses? And yes, I understand classical evolution and punctuated equilibrium and all the BS excuses from the Humanist religion. Have you ever gone beyond evolution 101? Because if you did, you would know that evolution 101 has been disproved a long time ago, but as a religious foundation it remains. It has been replaced by punctuated equilibrium because of no transitional fossils.

Ever been a fossil hunter? I have, It cured me of evolution quickly.

[From many - one.]

What is a Creation course and in what department would it be offered in.

I have read Genesis pretty thoroughly and when I comment on it I quote chapter and verse.

You are not doing the same in your commentaries on evolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If the appendix has been shows to be part of the immune system, then how does it no longer follow its original purpose?

Hello?"

Hello. The appendix was originally a much larger organ that digested cellulose. It no longer does that in humans; it does have a very small and unnecessary immunological function. It is a classic example of a vestigial organ.


"Without its wings an ostrich could not run well over rough terrain, in fact its wings work quite well. It just cannot fly."


Thanks for making the same points I did, though you don't understand them.

"So I do not consider the wings to be vestigial, clip its wings and it is almost defenseless against predators as it cannot keep its balance, nor turn near as fast."

Again: Vestigial does NOT mean useless, it never did. Darwin said it only means the structure is not doing one of its old primary functions anymore. Obviously the ostrich wing is a smaller, rudimentary version of a larger wing it's ancestors had. They could fly, the ostrich lost that ability. The wing has a function in balance, but NO LONGER in flying. Therefore, it is by definition vestigial.