Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 Americans still hold creationist views

If you're in a room of 100 people, odds are likely about 40 think God created humans about 10,000 years ago, part of a philosophy called creationism, according to a Gallup poll reported Friday (Dec. 17). That number is slightly lower than in years past and down from a high of 47 percent in both 1993 and 1999.

And 38 percent of Americans, the poll estimates, believe God guided the process that brought humans from "cavemen" to today's incarnation over millions of years, while 16 percent think humans evolved over millions of years, without any divine intervention.

This secular view, while a relatively small number, is up from 9 percent in 1982, according to Gallup.

Like most American attitudes, Gallup wrote, views on human origins have political consequences. For instance, debates and clashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in school textbooks have persisted for decades. And with 40 percent of Americans continuing to hold to an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely that these types of debates will continue, according to Gallup.

The findings also stand in stark contrast to another announcement Friday, this one by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The memo was issued to federal science agencies to guide them in making rules to ensure scientific integrity.

The Gallup results are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 10-12 with a random sample of 1,019 adults, ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States. The findings were weighted by gender, age, race, education, religion and phone lines to make the sample nationally representative.

"Adaptation of a population through change in the DNA of a population is evolution BY DEFINITION!"

It is also the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Making your beliefs true by definition doesn't mean they are reality. Neither does screaming at the top of your lungs.

"Wrong, the creationist paradigm is that mutations are bad and lead to a loss of information; NOT that the lead to novel biological solutions to problems."

Again, you need to define creation models in a manner that allows you to call them wrong by definition. This is just the opposite side of defining evolution such that it is true by definition. Where you err is in confusing this fallacious logic with reality.

"You explained nothing, you said that if fit within the creationist model because God created life with the ability to adapt (through finding novel biological solutions through DNA mutation); but did not explain why this explanation after the fact is unique to creationism or even favored by creationism and while completely IGNORING the fact that the vast majority of creationists insist that mutations are bad and lead only to a loss of information."

You are the one whose beliefs are true by definition and based in logical fallacy. Appealing to the fallacy of popular opinion is not an argument. It too is logical fallacy. How many fallacies can you base your 'arguments' on?

"Life being created has nothing to do with the subject at hand, only how it evolves/adapts via change in its DNA in order to better survive its environment."

Of course it does. Why else would you deny it so stringently?

"So if mutation of DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental stresses, what is the so called ‘barrier’ that would prevent a carnivorous species from differentiating into feline and canine lines?

This is the negative proof fallacy where you get to claim your beliefs are true until someone proves they are impossible. If the fact that felines have never been observed to differentiate into canines isn't scientific enough for you, nothing is.

"What ‘barrier’ would prevent a 2% genomic difference from accumulating between humans and chimpanzees?"

The old 98% argument has long been refuted. You should really try to update your sources.

"And how do you explain the nested hierarchy and predictability of the presence of ERV sequences without common descent? You “explain” it by saying ‘that fits into the creationist model’ as much as you want; doesn't make it so, and doesn't really ‘explain’ ANYTHING.'

Neither does evolution 'explain' anything. ERV's can be explained just as easily as common insertion points as it can by 'common descent'. Evolution is just a bunch of ad hoc after-the-fact story-telling using logical fallacies as 'argument'. Nothing scientific about that at all.

So if I define evolution by what is observed, that populations change their DNA over time in response to environmental pressures, that is just “affirming the consequence”?

How about if I define gravity by what is observed, that mass has a universal attraction leading the small mass of the Earth to orbit the large mass of the Sun; is that also just “affirming the consequence”?

Reality is that the vast majority of creationists argue that mutations are bad and that changes in DNA will NOT lead to novel biological solutions. Fallacy is your denial of this reality.

Once again you show how absolutely ignorant you are on the subject. Refutation because I said so may carry water among the ignorant, but it doesn't mean squat here. Humans and chimps are 98% the same in GENETIC DNA. That is a fact and it has not been “refuted”.

So what would be the ‘barrier’ to humans and chimps accumulating this 2% difference in genetic DNA? I mean if changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions, what would prevent it?

Common insertion points doesn't explain at all the pattern of degradation such that those ERV sequences in common to many species are more degraded than those common only to a few species, or why those are more degraded than those common only to a single species.

Why it looks EXACTLY like one would expect it to if the ERV incorporated into a common ancestor of all those species that have it and the amount of degradation of the sequence is thus proportional to how common it is among related species.

Once again your “explanation” doesn't really explain the salient facts. No matter how much you insist that this really fits in the “creationist model” - whatever that is from day to day, from creationist to creationist - when the vast majority claim that mutations can NOT produce novel biological solutions.

"I thought you knew the context. Post #14."

You said, "You are positing that entropy invalidates it, so you need to show how."

I thought you knew that I didn't write post #14.

"Evolution proposes that natural selection did it. There has been much evidence for this, so much to make it the predominant theory in the area despite persecution of its early proponents."

'Natural selection' is not a force, nor has it ever been shown to 'decrease' entropy.

"And stating an objection to an established theory without providing evidence for that objection usually gets you laughted at or ignored."

And continuing to base your belief in a theory on the fallacy of negative proof gets you laughed at but never ignored.

"So if I define evolution by what is observed, that populations change their DNA over time in response to environmental pressures, that is just “affirming the consequence”?"

You can't even repeat what you've been told accurately. LOL!

"How about if I define gravity by what is observed, that mass has a universal attraction leading the small mass of the Earth to orbit the large mass of the Sun; is that also just “affirming the consequence”?"

I can always tell when even you recognize that you are losing badly. You try the geocentrism angle even though this has been explained to you countless times and you didn't understand that either.

"Reality is that the vast majority of creationists argue that mutations are bad and that changes in DNA will NOT lead to novel biological solutions. Fallacy is your denial of this reality."

No, that is the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.

"Once again you show how absolutely ignorant you are on the subject. Refutation because I said so may carry water among the ignorant, but it doesn't mean squat here. Humans and chimps are 98% the same in GENETIC DNA. That is a fact and it has not been “refuted”."

Reference for this 'fact' please?

"So what would be the ‘barrier’ to humans and chimps accumulating this 2% difference in genetic DNA? I mean if changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions, what would prevent it?"

Now you're back to the negative proof fallacy where you think you get to claim something is a fact unless and until it is proven to be impossible. Still living in fallacy-land.

"Common insertion points doesn't explain at all the pattern of degradation such that those ERV sequences in common to many species are more degraded than those common only to a few species, or why those are more degraded than those common only to a single species."

They may not even be ancient retroviruses as you assume. The only existing exogenous ERV that I know of is HIV, and we know how well that one would have turned out in ancient history. LOL. The other human ERV's have no exogenous counterparts. You simply imagine that they existed.

"Why it looks EXACTLY like one would expect it to if the ERV incorporated into a common ancestor of all those species that have it and the amount of degradation of the sequence is thus proportional to how common it is among related species."

Reference for the number of assumptions needed to reach this mythical EXACT appearance please.

"Once again your “explanation” doesn't really explain the salient facts. No matter how much you insist that this really fits in the “creationist model” - whatever that is from day to day, from creationist to creationist - when the vast majority claim that mutations can NOT produce novel biological solutions."

It explains them as well as your beliefs do, no matter how much you insist otherwise and no matter how often you use the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion as 'support' for your 'arguments'.

I thought you knew that I didn't write post #14.

But you have been supporting its contention. And don't tell me you're now going to get all anal about post numbers after your writing about post #62.

'Natural selection' is not a force

It was never claimed to be one.

And continuing to base your belief in a theory on the fallacy of negative proof gets you laughed at but never ignored.

You need to learn how science works. You need to provide evidence to support an attack, then the defender needs to provide evidence to refute your attack. If we allowed your style of attack, then you could just make rapid-fire baseless statements without evidence all day long, demanding they be refuted with evidence in a effort to tie up the opposition's time. Come to think of it, that is pretty much the creationist/IDer debate tactic.

"But you have been supporting its contention."

No, I've been saying that there is no evidence that entropy can be decreased on the massive scale that you require.

"And don't tell me you're now going to get all anal about post numbers after your writing about post #62."

I didn't write about post #62 either.

And what's up with this 'orifice fixation' that you seem to have?

"It was never claimed to be one."

Are you down to parsing sentences into incompleteness now? Why leave out the second half where I said, "...nor has it ever been shown to 'decrease' entropy." Apparently you have no answer for that part. But I knew that.

"You need to learn how science works. You need to provide evidence to support an attack, then the defender needs to provide evidence to refute your attack. If we allowed your style of attack, then you could just make rapid-fire baseless statements without evidence all day long, demanding they be refuted with evidence in a effort to tie up the opposition's time. Come to think of it, that is pretty much the creationist/IDer debate tactic."

You need to learn how science works. You need to provide evidence to support this massive decrease in entropy that you believe happened. Otherwise you simply engage in the negative proof fallacy and that isn't science. Never was, isn't now and never will be.

Come to think of it, reliance on fallacious logic seems to be the cornerstone of naturalist debate.

Explaining what “the creationist model” is, based upon the opinion and pronouncements of actual creationists is NOT an “appeal to popularity” any more than explaining what a Baptist is, based upon the opinion and pronouncements of actual Baptists is.

Your “affirming the consequences” seems your catch all for ‘what you said fits observations, thus it is merely affirming the consequences’. It is your crutch, but you cannot explain why any model that matches observation is not similarly “affirming the consequences”.

Yes, you are a Geocentrist. I didn't bring up gravity just to point that out, but there it is! Are you also going to try to deny it?

‘Explained to you countless times before’ is the same dodge most internet idiots use. No need to actually present an argument, it has been done before! Miraculous!

Humans and chimps are about 98% the same in genetic DNA. But what barrier would prevent even a 10% change in genetic or genomic DNA, if changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277/?tool=pubmed

HIV is the only exogenous retrovirus you know of? Well your ignorance is no excuse. There are many different types of ERV’s. And all those extant that infect a species have “relics” of ERV sequences of those specific types of virus in their genome.

And your ‘this fits within the creationist model’ common insertion points still does NOTHING towards explaining why we see a pattern consistent with common descent in the degradation of these ERV sequences proportional to how common they are among species.

An illustration of the POWER of randomly produced variation in DNA to derive novel biological solutions to environmental problems is explained just as well by de-novo creation as it is by evolution through natural selection of genetic variation??????

Oh that is really funny!!!! You missed your calling. You should really be telling howlers like that in front of an audience!!!!

"Explaining what “the creationist model” is, based upon the opinion and pronouncements of actual creationists is NOT an “appeal to popularity” any more than explaining what a Baptist is, based upon the opinion and pronouncements of actual Baptists is."

When your 'arguments' are based on "...the vast majority claim..." that is the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.

"Your “affirming the consequences” seems your catch all for ‘what you said fits observations, thus it is merely affirming the consequences’. It is your crutch, but you cannot explain why any model that matches observation is not similarly “affirming the consequences”."

LOL! You still can't read and accurately respond to the fallacy. Even after I point out that you are in error, you continue your error. Wow.

"Yes, you are a Geocentrist. I didn't bring up gravity just to point that out, but there it is! Are you also going to try to deny it?"

You always bring this out when you are losing badly, as though this helps your cause. It's just another area where you get to display your ignorance.

"‘Explained to you countless times before’ is the same dodge most internet idiots use. No need to actually present an argument, it has been done before! Miraculous!"

Except in this case you really have had this explained to him countless times, still can't comprehend it and bring it up when you are losing badly.

"Humans and chimps are about 98% the same in genetic DNA. But what barrier would prevent even a 10% change in genetic or genomic DNA, if changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems?"

Again, this appeal is the negative proof fallacy where you think you can claim something is a fact until it is proven impossible. Still a fallacy, always was a fallacy and always will be a fallacy.

"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277/?tool=pubmed"

From the article. "All of the 53 DNA segments studied were chosen to avoid coding regions." This qualifies as a distinction without a difference.

"HIV is the only exogenous retrovirus you know of? Well your ignorance is no excuse. There are many different types of ERV’s. And all those extant that infect a species have “relics” of ERV sequences of those specific types of virus in their genome."

I knew I should have been exhaustively redundant so that you wouldn't get lost. I will restate the premise for you.

No exogenous counterparts of HERV's exist.

"And your ‘this fits within the creationist model’ common insertion points still does NOTHING towards explaining why we see a pattern consistent with common descent in the degradation of these ERV sequences proportional to how common they are among species."

Sure it does. ERV's insert at common points that, in the mind of an evolutionist, can be twisted into a perceived 'pattern of common descent'.

"An illustration of the POWER of randomly produced variation in DNA to derive novel biological solutions to environmental problems is explained just as well by de-novo creation as it is by evolution through natural selection of genetic variation??????"

You are confusing the existence of the phenomenon with the origin of the phenomenon through circular reasoning. This too is a type of logical fallacy. Not surprising that you would make this error.

"Oh that is really funny!!!! You missed your calling. You should really be telling howlers like that in front of an audience!!!!"

Now that is hilarious. You do seem to have found your calling. Telling howlers like 'single infection' followed by 'common descent' in front of audiences that actually engage in common fantasies will be the real howler some day. Fallacy of appeal to popular opinion notwithstanding.

Your lame crutch of everything being a logical fallacy doesn't change the facts that...

Humans and chimps are 98% the same in genetic DNA.

Changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions.

The vast majority of creationists insist that changes in DNA can only lead to detrimental outcomes and “loss of information”.

An organism having a mechanism to increase its mutation rate during stress is consistent with evolution: the change in the DNA of a population over time to maximize survival in particular environmental conditions - it is not at all logically consistent with creation de novo, and saying it is is the fallacy of “argument by assertion”, the only argument you are really capable of, because the facts and evidence are so woefully against you.

ERV sequences form a pattern of similarity and divergence proportional to how common they are between species, a pattern that is immediately apparent and predictable - a pattern which your ‘common insertion points’ does absolutely nothing to explain.

I display MY ignorance by pointing out that YOU are a Geocentrist?

That is ANOTHER good one! Let me have a hearty laugh at your expense!!!!

"Your lame crutch of everything being a logical fallacy doesn't change the facts that..."

So your 'argument' is that the more logical fallacies you use in supporting your beliefs, the strong those beliefs become because you can always claim that 'everything' can't be a logical fallacy? LOL!

"Humans and chimps are 98% the same in genetic DNA."

53 non-coding samples does not a genome comparison make.

"Changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions."

You can't claim they are novel just because you haven't seen them before. That's what your claim reduces to even though you are apparently incapable of recognizing that.

"The vast majority of creationists insist that changes in DNA can only lead to detrimental outcomes and “loss of information”."

Again, using the term 'the vast majority' is the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.

"An organism having a mechanism to increase its mutation rate during stress is consistent with evolution:" "...the change in the DNA of a population over time to maximize survival in particular environmental conditions - it is not at all logically consistent with creation de novo...

Maybe not to a person who uses multiple logical fallacies to support their position. This one would be the bare assertion fallacy.

"...and saying it is is the fallacy of “argument by assertion”, the only argument you are really capable of, because the facts and evidence are so woefully against you."

Again, the fact that something exists is not evidence that it arose through 'evolution'. This is an extremely difficult concept for evolutionist's to grasp, apparently.

"ERV sequences form a pattern of similarity and divergence proportional to how common they are between species, a pattern that is immediately apparent and predictable - a pattern which your ‘common insertion points’ does absolutely nothing to explain."

The pattern is in the eye of the beholder and the beholder has a predisposition to the evolution paradigm. You cannot argue that common insertion points wouldn't look like common descent without arguing your own pattern into invisibility.

"I display MY ignorance by pointing out that YOU are a Geocentrist?"

Whenever you are losing badly, you trot out your favorite misunderstanding in an attempt to bolster your credibility. It has nothing to do with this thread yet you keep trying to insert it as though that will help you. It only confirms that your beliefs about cosmology are based in the same fallacious thinking as your beliefs about biology.

"That is ANOTHER good one! Let me have a hearty laugh at your expense!!!!"

"Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless."

“only confirms that your beliefs about cosmology are based in the same fallacious thinking as your beliefs about biology.”

So it is fallacious thinking that leads one to believe the Earth orbits around the Sun?

I claim the solutions are novel because they were NOT PRESENT in the bacteria before it started expressing error prone DNA polymerase.

So you disagree with the vast majority of creationists that insist that all mutations are bad and lead to a loss of information (the reason I brought up error prone DNA polymerase in the first place was that a creationist was making that exact argument)?

Good for you! You have made a clear step towards accepting reality (that changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems) and away from the idiocy of creationism!

So now that you agree that changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems, what would prevent a carnivore into differentiating over time into two different lineages, say the canine and feline?

Did God put in evolutionary “speed bumps”? A wall of separation between evolution and change in species? What is going to prevent the small amount of DNA difference from accumulating between separate populations such that they become some 2-5% different in genetic DNA?

"After this I have to end this, you’re just getting absurd and ignoring basic facts."

I am simply responding to the 'facts' you are attempting to use. You are the one who is getting absurd and ignoring basic facts.

"Post #62: Not by me"

"You in post #210 to me: “You are the one said, “”Show me an equation describing decreased entropy on Earth in the Earth/Sun system as violating the 2L. Put up or shut up.” in post #62.”"

Yes, that was the first of several posts where you confused decreased entropy with increased entropy. You finally admitted your error in post #218 after several rounds of inaccuracy.

"Me in post #218: “BTW, that was post #106 in response for someone else who brought the 2L into the discussion. “

That's right. It was someone else. You continually tried to assign someone else's words to me and I refused to allow it. Apparently when you are not allowed to do that, it creates a problem for you.

"You here: “I didn’t write about post #62 either. “

That's correct. You studiously avoided answering my statements and continually tried to assign someone else's words in me.

"Basic reality disconnect confirmed simply by looking through this thread."

The basic reality disconnect confirmed in the thread is your constant refusal to provide support for the massive decrease in entropy needed to support your contention that life on earth 'evolved'.

"Bye."

Adios

"So it is fallacious thinking that leads one to believe the Earth orbits around the Sun?"

You keep trying to send the discussion off on a tangent because you are losing so badly.

"I claim the solutions are novel because they were NOT PRESENT in the bacteria before it started expressing error prone DNA polymerase."

Again, it is the presence of the mechanism that generates these mutations that is the key. Not whether the mutations existed or not. You seem to have a problem understanding this.

"So you disagree with the vast majority of creationists that insist that all mutations are bad and lead to a loss of information (the reason I brought up error prone DNA polymerase in the first place was that a creationist was making that exact argument)?"

Again, anytime you use the term 'vast majority' you are engaging in the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. That is not an argument. That is a logical fallacy.

"Good for you! You have made a clear step towards accepting reality (that changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems) and away from the idiocy of creationism!"

Unfortunately, projecting your own opinions onto others is not a form of rational argument either.

"So now that you agree that changes in DNA can lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems, what would prevent a carnivore into differentiating over time into two different lineages, say the canine and feline?"

Again, this is the negative proof fallacy where you try to claim that an assertion is true until it is proven impossible. This too is a logical fallacy.

"Did God put in evolutionary “speed bumps”? A wall of separation between evolution and change in species? What is going to prevent the small amount of DNA difference from accumulating between separate populations such that they become some 2-5% different in genetic DNA?"

Again, this is the negative proof fallacy where you try to claim that an assertion is true or false until it is proven otherwise. This remains a logical fallacy.

“Again, anytime you use the term ‘vast majority’ you are engaging in the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. That is not an argument. That is a logical fallacy.” Gourmet Dan

What an idiotic assertion! You are like a child playing with a tool they do not even understand!

An appeal to popular opinion is the logical fallacy of saying something is CORRECT because it is widely believed.

I am not saying that what creationist believe is correct or incorrect because of how widespread the belief is among creationists.

I am saying that the vast majority of creationists believe that mutations are detrimental and cannot lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems.

That is no more an appeal to popularity than my pointing out that the vast majority of Americans are Christian. I am not saying Christianity is true BECAUSE most Americans are Christian, I am merely pointing out the FACT that most Americans are Christian.

Do you understand this, or should I explain it to you again using smaller words. Would a diagram help?

"What an idiotic assertion! You are like a child playing with a tool they do not even understand! An appeal to popular opinion is the logical fallacy of saying something is CORRECT because it is widely believed."

Your reference to the 'vast majority' is irrelevant to the discussion if it is not an appeal to the 'correctness' of the beliefs held by that 'vast majority'.

"I am not saying that what creationist believe is correct or incorrect because of how widespread the belief is among creationists. I am saying that the vast majority of creationists believe that mutations are detrimental and cannot lead to novel biological solutions to environmental problems."

Again, if there is no appeal to accuracy, then the statement is irrelevant to our discussion.

"That is no more an appeal to popularity than my pointing out that the vast majority of Americans are Christian. I am not saying Christianity is true BECAUSE most Americans are Christian, I am merely pointing out the FACT that most Americans are Christian."

Again, if there is no appeal to accuracy, then the statement is irrelevant to our discussion.

"Do you understand this, or should I explain it to you again using smaller words. Would a diagram help?"

Do you understand this, or should I explain it to you again using smaller words. Would a diagram help?

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.