Posted on 06/02/2012 9:30:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
PRINCETON, N.J., June 2 (UPI) -- The percentage of U.S. residents who believe God created human beings less than 10,000 years ago has changed little in the past 30 years, a Gallup poll says.
In a report Friday, the Gallup organization said 46 percent held that view in the most recent poll. In 1982, when Gallup first asked the question, the percentage was 44 percent and the average over the years has been 45 percent.
The poll was conducted for USA Today.
Almost one-third, 32 percent, said humans have evolved over millions of years with divine guidance, down from an average of 37 percent. Another 15 percent say that evolution took place without God's guidance.
Regular churchgoers and Republicans are more likely to have a creationist view of human evolution. While 58 percent of Republicans believe humans were created in the past 10,000 years, only 41 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents agree.
People who have attended graduate school and those who do not go to church regularly are more likely to support evolution.
Gallup interviewed a random sample of 1,012 adults between May 10 and May 13 by telephone. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.
I've never heard of "scientific faith."
I'd say that site you linked helps to illustrate the magnitude of the problem.
You remind me of the mooninites. I guess we cannot understand your logic. It is superior.
Because you have no knowledge of Pangaea, or understand Plate Tectonics does not mean it did not happen, much like the fact of common ancestry. But nice try at setting up your strawman
I believe in the Old Testament; that the universe is ~15by old, that our galaxy is ~11by, that it took at least 3 generations of stars to produce the Sun across that time to some 5BY ago, that Earth is ~4.5 by old, that oil and coal are of biological orgin incorporated in sediments some 75 to 5my ago and that essentially “modern” man is about 85,000 years old.
There’s good scientific basis and thank God for all of it.
You’ve been reading my mail onedoug. I agree!
I understand why you want to switch the topic to geology — defending the biology is pretty hard. And I have to say that it is mighty slick of you to accuse me of posting a strawman argument while you switch the topic over to geology. Well played!
Right. Because it's illogical to think that scientific evidence could possibly prove anything, and any logical person would reject scientific evidence out of hand.
The typical ‘logic’ of evolutionists involves made up stories that have zero evidence, circular reasoning and arrogance.
I wonder if you believe in the ‘science’ of anthropogenic global warming as well?
I wonder if you believe in the ‘science’ of anthropogenic global warming as well?
You're comparing apples and oranges.
The process of evolution--not the theory, which was devised to explain the process, but the process itself--is an unavoidable feature of biology which scientists both account for and exploit to advance knowledge within the life sciences. It's apolitical, and, for the most part, people seem to appreciate the advances we've made using it. Furthermore, not all people of faith see a threat to their faith because evolution plays such a major role in biology. I certainly don't. Those who do, however, threaten scientific advancement if they should ever get into a position where they have the political power to stop or impede any research that is related to evolution.
On the other hand, the hypothesis that the fluorescence of CO2 within the infrared portion of the light spectrum has a disproportionate effect on the natural warming/cooling cycles of the earth has never, to my knowledge, been demonstrated. But, for politicians who've never succeeded in achieving authoritarian control (aka socialism) over the people, this hypothesis is a gift from heaven. They're not trying to restrict our freedom because they're control freaks--no, they're doing it to save the earth! Keep in mind that politicians decide which research gets funded--so any researcher who wants funding throws in something about "anthropogenic global warming" even if their research has nothing to do with climate change. It's a completely different issue.
You couldn't be more wrong. I read your comment above and the similarities leap off the page. Scientists who want funding have to toe the proper line. Oppose global warming? No money for you. Oppose Evolution? No money for you.
Science has demonstrated micro-evolution -- genetic change cannot be argued against. This has led to scientific advances. Great. The concept that all life has a common ancestor? This is not proven. Just like global warming is not proven.
There are cultural and political reasons why Evolution is pushed by certain people beyond the field of science. The reasons have to do with domination of people, and the imposition of control over free men and women with a Political Elite as the only law that must be obeyed. A higher law gets in the way -- but Evolution says we don't need any higher law: Men can handle everything and anything. Evolution is about socialism just as much as global warming is.
Some of us see this. You do not. If you cannot step away from the belief in macro-evolution, fine -- let's say for a moment that it is all true. You should be willing to aknowledge that in terms of funding and in terms of "political usefulness" for the Socialists, both Evolution and Global Warming are equally useful. You might want to say one is true and one is false -- but the people pushing these concepts don't care about Truth: they care about expediency. The Theory of Evolution is very expedient if you want to impose a secular, materialist, socialist society on mankind.
Like Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci and Galileo, great minds know sans non-temporal intelligent design all science never was and scientists never are.
You do realize, don't you, that "micro-evolution" is not a scientific concept? And it also is not a Biblical concept? It has every appearance of being invented by young-earth creationist charlatans (YECCs) to try to convince people they aren't liars when they tell them that the evidence of evolution that is all around us isn't real.
So, you personally are unaware of the evidence for a common ancestor. You do realize that just because you, personally, don't know something doesn't mean the knowledge doesn't exist, don't you? In fact, everything you could possibly want to know about common ancestry, and how we determine it, is probably right there on Google (search "common ancestry"). That is, if you have a genuine desire to learn about it.
One last thing: you might want to consider where you got the idea that scientists are trying to eliminate religion. I highly suspect it was from YECCs--they make that claim frequently. If they can't convince people that scientists are "out to get them", then people won't give them as much money.
Yup. You've hit it on the head. That's my entire argument summed up in one sentence. To re-state it: "My brain isn't big enough to understand Evolution, therefore Evolution isn't true." That's precisely what I'm saying.
[/HEAVY sarcasm]
You really wish people argued with you at that level, don't you? I actually understand a fair amount about science. I could make a case in favor of Evolution if I wanted too -- but I wouldn't believe it. The point is: I understand your side of the debate. However, it is pretty obvious to me that you do not have an understanding of the non-Evolution side of the debate. All you have is scorn and contempt. You do not undertand your opponent -- you do not want to understand your opponent -- and so you make ineffectual arguments.
Of course we have all sorts of species with body parts which obviously do not work now but will be useful in a few million years.
Not at all. The evolutionary view is that the various body parts had other functions before they had the functions they have now. Or that the functions and shapes of the body parts changed together.
A vertebrate's wing is an arm that is specialized for flight. Before it became specialized for flight, it was specialized for gliding. Before gliding, the animal jumped--obviously, certain arm shapes would be better than others for jumping, and the animals having those arm shapes would be better suited for jumping than animals with different arm shapes. And so on and so on. There are plenty of examples of animals with arms that are at different points along the way to becoming fully functional wings.
Kangaroos?
Gallup is a little off the mark.
Actually, more accurate and comprehensive polls show 68% are full creationists, and another 13% are weak creationists that believe that evolution had a part in it.
I'll be honest: every time I see some young-earth creationist (YEC) spout some claim that evolution isn't "proven", I cringe. I'd expect to see those kinds of claims at some anti-Christian parody site, where the goal is to make Christians look as stupid as possible. There are plenty of websites like that out there--the last thing *I* want to do is give them more material to mock us with.
When I see that kind of claim repeated uncritically, it tells me that the person repeating it saw it at some anti-science YEC website (or book, video, whatever), and didn't bother to fact check. While I don't necessarily expect people without a scientific education to be able to read original research reports, countless articles and books about evolution written for laypersons are available, and natural history museums are plentiful. If you don't understand evolution, or you are unaware of the vast amount of evidence for it, it is not because there is no evidence--it's because you refuse to see it.
You really wish people argued with you at that level, don't you? I actually understand a fair amount about science. I could make a case in favor of Evolution if I wanted too -- but I wouldn't believe it. The point is: I understand your side of the debate. However, it is pretty obvious to me that you do not have an understanding of the non-Evolution side of the debate. All you have is scorn and contempt. You do not undertand your opponent -- you do not want to understand your opponent -- and so you make ineffectual arguments.
No, what I really wish is that everyone who's bought into the notion that you either believe science, or you believe religion would realize that it's not an either-or proposition. Science and religion have different, mostly non-overlapping, roles in society. There is no reason that a Christian can't be a scientist, or that a scientist can't be a Christian (and most scientists I've met *are* people of faith). As long as YEC charlatans keep evoking susceptible people's emotions and pushing anti-science for self-gain, no one wins. Kids turn away from science because they believe they'll go to hell if they study it. Kids turn away from religion because it's nearly impossible to deny mountains of scientific evidence on the flimsy excuse that it's not in the Bible. Meanwhile, the US is dropping further behind in the areas of science and mathematics--and the number of Christians and people of any faith is dropping, as well. These are not good trends!
BTW, I *do* understand my opponent. YECs are emotion based--scientists are logic based. I'm well aware that logic does not convince emotional people, but I'll keep trying.
And this is the stunning evidence and logic of evolutionists. How can anyone deny this kind of proof?/sarc I could write something as factual, logical and convincing about a tornado, a junkyard and a 747 but in either case its just a made up story with no evidence. If only cells were just full of mush, evolution would be so much easier to believe.
Indeed. How *can* anyone deny the existence of countless fossils, the fossil and geological records which tell a story of gradual change over time, or the phylogenetic method of DNA analysis that confirms all of the evidence that thousands of scientists for generations have been collecting?
But don't tell me, let me guess--you're hoping to see your post repeated on some anti-Christian website. *I* wouldn't want to give them more material to bash Christians with, but I guess that's just me.
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.