Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution
Associated Press ^ | June 12, 2007

Posted on 06/13/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by presidio9

The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.

A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

The poll also said that those who go to church often are far likelier to reject evolution than those who do not. Republicans are likelier than Democrats or independents to attend church services, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.

At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.

The Gallup survey, conducted May 21 to 24, involved telephone interviews with 1,007 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christianity; crevo; crevolist; dnctalkingpoints; evolution; gop; polls; religion; smearcampaign; theoryofevolution; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-174 next last
To: narby

How so?


61 posted on 06/13/2007 11:19:51 AM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"Weyl spinor description of neutrinos, now that’s something."

Now there's something to sink your teeth into! no hand-waving or simplifying assumptions there...

;^)

...too many darn leptons anyway...(grin)

62 posted on 06/13/2007 11:21:33 AM PDT by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: narby
I'll take a "faith" that has been tested, that has an explained mechanism in DNA, that has massive quantities of evidence to support it, over a faith that points to the empty sky and says, "see, God lives up there".

Oops, that's just it right there - evolution DOESN'T have "massive quantities of evidence to support it." Evolutionists take observable data and interpret it a certain way. They then claim that this interpretation is itself evidence for their philosophical intepretation. In other words, it's all circular. There is nothing about the mechanism of genetics, or anything else in science for that matter, which independently confirms evolution. All we see is evolutionists latching onto observable data, applying their own interpretation to it based upon their theory, and then claiming this to be, in and of itself, evidence to support the theory. It's bogus nonsense.

63 posted on 06/13/2007 11:22:43 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
Let me see if I have this straight. Left wing intellectuals are wrong when it comes to: anthropogenic global warming, the importance of fathers and traditional marriage for childrearing, the economic benefits of free markets, the economic benefits of low taxes, whether gender roles are merely social constructs, and whether western civilization rose to prominence because of a superior culture. But they are correct when it comes to macro-evolution.

Got it. You are right, it is sad to see Republicans out of touch with consensus of left wing intellectuals.

What bizarre logic!

Left-wing intellectuals also breathe. So should all Conservatives hold their breath?

64 posted on 06/13/2007 11:31:10 AM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
no hand-waving or simplifying assumptions there...

At the same time we hope to find the flaw so we can make the epochal breakthrough. We're not trying to prove Einstein, we're trying to prove Einstein wrong. In the meantime let's take a few more measurements; we'll need an Atlas 5, a few technicians and hangar space for a couple years, some CPU time, and a Hughes chair at Columbia wouldn't hurt the career.

65 posted on 06/13/2007 11:32:48 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wereatwar
But who are the 30 percent calling themselves Republicans and at the same time reject God's word? That part of the poll is quite hard to believe.

My liberal friends here in NYC all describe and dismiss the Republican Party the same way: a party overtaken by fundamentalist Christians.

66 posted on 06/13/2007 11:33:09 AM PDT by warpsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

Are you saying that Genesis 1:5 is therefore untrue?


67 posted on 06/13/2007 11:34:23 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Throughout this post you are complaining about science and evolution, and that there is no evidence to support evolution. (That is plainly false.)

No, it's plainly true. No evidence independently confirms evolution. No evidence actually shows that evolution is the only explanation. Evolution, in a sense, is merely the same "God in the gaps" that you're trying to accuse me of below. Evolution is a philosophy which INTERPRETS data, and which is misleadingly claimed to ITSELF be the data.

On the other hand, you want ID taught as a scientific theory even though it lacks any scientific evidence. Talk about a double standard.

Well, if your reading and retention skills were better, you'd remember that throughout all the past threads in which I've weighed in on the evolution-creation debate, I've never once said that ID/creationism were "scientific" theories. In fact, what I've said is that NEITHER these NOR evolution are scientific, specifically for the reason that none can be approached through the scientific method. BOTH sides rely upon interpretation of data and empirical evidences based upon philosophical predispositions, but for both, the appeals to the data are essentially circumstantial.

If we wish to abstain from teaching "unscientific" doctrines in the government schools, then let's just drop the matter of origins entirely, since neither can be reproduced experimentally, and both are precious difficult to use, in and of themselves, to make predictions that are experimentally testable. If we don't want unscientific dogma in the schools, then let's just stick to the 95% of science out there for which the question of origins is entirely irrelevant anywise.

You want critical thinking? Riddle me this. How many designers are/were there? When did the design occur? And please specify the evidence that you use to support your positions.

There was one Designer, it occurred about 10,000 years ago, and it's so because the Bible says so. Which is just as "scientific" as using circular reasoning, verifiably faulty radiometric dating methods, mathematical speculations which are not even testable in a lab, and reliance upon theories to explain the origin of life which are not only unlikely, but actually are IMPOSSIBLE using laws of science which are actually experimentally derived and which have withstood the test of time, to support evolution.

68 posted on 06/13/2007 11:36:27 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wereatwar
But who are the 30 percent calling themselves Republicans and at the same time reject God's word?

I wouldn't say that. Anyone who was in the College Republicans in school knows that being a Republican doesn't necessarily mean one is a fundamentalist Christian!

69 posted on 06/13/2007 11:39:29 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Easy. As a physicist it’s not my job.

Science is seamless. Darwin's estimate of the age of the earth was orders of magnitude better than that of his contemporary physicists.

70 posted on 06/13/2007 11:49:22 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
Are you saying that Genesis 1:5 is therefore untrue?

No. Genesis was obviously not originally written in English. The Hebrew word eventually translated to "day" in Genesis was the Hebrew word "yowm", which can mean either "day", "year" or "a period of time". Genesis 1:14 and 1:5 are in conflict, unless a "day", as in the six days, is meant to be an unspecified period of time.

71 posted on 06/13/2007 11:50:49 AM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Charles was a dilettante. Erasmus would have been, too, but he wrote only in Latin.


72 posted on 06/13/2007 11:51:24 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
and it's so because the Bible says so.

Yep, that's proof.

73 posted on 06/13/2007 11:53:28 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Pray for the deliberately ignorant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

And the second part of the verse says, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Since evening and morning only occur during a 24 hour period (a day), the Hebrew word is correctly translated as “day”.

Again I ask, is Genesis 1:5 untrue?


74 posted on 06/13/2007 11:59:20 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Charles was a dilettante.

Maybe so, but he correctly estimated the amount of time needed to get from the Cambrian to today.

I guess it's just luck that the issues he pondered are still being investigated.

75 posted on 06/13/2007 12:08:38 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Yep, that's proof.

Apparently, my point was a bit too subtle....

76 posted on 06/13/2007 12:09:20 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Even a dilettant can be correct. Where they go wrong is to underestimate the difficulty of completing the project.


77 posted on 06/13/2007 12:11:54 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: conservativehusker
who is to say that a day from the bible is one of our 24 hour days....just because you believe one can’t the other be plausible as well???

Absolutely. But if "days" in Genesis mean eons, then the rest of the language in Genesis is also descriptive of eons, which means that the phrase "each according to it's kind" (or "after his kind," depending upon which version you read) denotes a categorical lineage that is not compatible with common descent.

78 posted on 06/13/2007 12:13:41 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dmz
You wrote:
"I’m still quite amazed at folks, such as yourself, who can live in such a strictly binary world as you describe."

To a true conservative and a true believer, the world is a simple place. You know by heart and by your soul what's right and what's wrong, and you're not afraid to stand up to it.
Political flip flopping, tap dancing around ethical issues, feminism, political correctness to the point of "understanding and accepting" the motives of muslim terrorists; that's the 'thing in the middle' that could bring this nation down.

Conservatism is not about creating complexity where there's none, but to see simplicity where others want to create complexity.
One of my favourite quotes from our president is exactly on this simplicity which is the heart of conservatism and lies at the core of being a true believer.

"Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place."
President G.W.Bush, Graduation Speech at West Point, June 1, 2002

The world is a simple place.
Ask yourself if you're a true conservative. If your answer is 'yes', you'll feel that this is true.
79 posted on 06/13/2007 12:16:49 PM PDT by wereatwar (We're at war, behave accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I believe in Evolution !!


80 posted on 06/13/2007 12:19:58 PM PDT by LM_Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-174 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson